Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11973
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11709
91-2-88-2-201
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company erred and
violated the contractual rights of Mr. Manuel Preciado when they assessed his
personal record thirty (30) demerits which directly led to his dismissal as a
result of an investigation held on April 8, 1987.
2. That the investigation was neither fair nor impartial.
3. That therefore the discipline of thirty (30) demerits be removed
from his record, and,
4. That the record of investigation and all other references to this
investigation be removed from his record.
FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Claimant was employed by the Carrier as an Electrician at its San
Bernardino Shops in San Bernardino, California.
Form 1 Award No. 11973
Page 2 Docket No. 11709
91-2-88-2-201
On March 26, 1987, the Carrier notified the Claimant to appear for a
formal Investigation in connection with the following charge:
'. . . your
alleged failure to secure formal
authorized leave of absence (Form 1516 Standard)
from February 24, 1987, to March 25, 1987, possible
violation of Rule 13 (paragraph 2), Form 2626 Standard, General Rules for the Guidance of Employees
1978 edition, so as to develop the facts and place
responsibility, if any, involving possible violation
of the above rule."
The Hearing took place on April 8, 1987. On April 15, 1987, the Carrier
notified the Claimant that he had been found guilty of the charge and was
assessed 30 demerits against his personal record. The Claimant was also
advised that his record now stood at 75 demerits, which subjected him to
dismissal. The Organization thereafter filed a Claim on Claimant's behalf,
challenging his discipline.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case and
we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding
that the Claimant was guilty of failing to secure formal authorized leave of
absence for the period from February 24, 1987 to March 25, 1987. The record
reveals that the Claimant was on a leave of absence prior to February 24,
1987, and he did not seek an extension of that leave until March 30, 1987.
Although the record also reveals that the Claimant was under extremely stressful circumstances during that period, the Rules require that he renew his
leave of absence in order to not be considered AWOL. The record also reveals
that the Claimant had obtained several leaves of absence in previous years and
was fully aware of his obligations under the Rules.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in
the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the
type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action to have been unreasonable,
arbitrary, or capricious.
For his infraction in this case, the Claimant received thirty
demerits. Given his previous work history and the nature of this infraction,
we cannot find that thirty demerits is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Therefore, the Claim will be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 11973
Page 3 Docket No. 11709
91-2-88-2-201
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy J. ~ - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of January 1991.