Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 12798
Docket No. 12669
94-2-93-2-54
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(International Association of Machinists
( and Aerospace Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago and North Western Transportation
( Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of Employees:
1. That the Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as the
"Carrier) violated the provisions of the Joint Agreement,
as amended July 1, 1979, specifically Rule 35, when,
subsequent to an investigation the Carrier unjustly and
improperly dismissed from service Proviso Diesel Shop
Machinist employee H. Green (hereinafter referred to as
"Claimant").
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to
(a) Restore Claimant to service with all
seniority and vacation rights unimpaired.
(b) Compensate Claimant for all time
lost from service commencing March 6, 1992.
(c) Make Claimant whole for all health
and welfare and insurance benefits lost while
dismissed from service.
(d) Expunge from Claimant's personal
record any and all reference to the
investigation proceedings and the discipline
subsequently imposed."
FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the Whole
record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved
in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Form 1 Award No. 12798
Page 2 Docket No. 12669
94-2-93-2-54
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
At the time this dispute arose, Claimant was assigned to a
Machinist position in the Carrier's Proviso Diesel Shop in
Northlake, Illinois. On August 25, 26, 29, 30, and 31, 1990,
Claimant was absent from his position without notifying or
obtaining permission from Carrier. By letter of August 30, 1990,
Claimant was notified to attend a formal investigation concerning
his absences. After several postponements, the investigation was
ultimately held on February 27, 1992. Following the investigation
Carrier notified Claimant of his dismissal from service, effective
March 6, 1992.
On March 30, 1992, Claimant's Local Chairman appealed the
discipline. That appeal was declined. The claim was subsequently
processed up to and including the highest Carrier officer
responsible for handling such matters. The claim was discussed :in
conference on the property on August 18, 1992, after which .it
remained unresolved.
The Organization has protested that Claimant was not accords=-d
a fair and impartial hearing. A review of the record indicates
that Carrier's hearing officer was in the main impartial and
conducted himself objectively. Both Carrier and the Hearing
Officer should be advised, however, that in many circumstances,
introduction of evidence by the Hearing Officer rather than by
Carrier's witness might well constitute a fatal procedural flaw.
In this instance, however, the remainder of the investigation
contained no such blunders. Accordingly, the Board does not find,
on balance, that Claimant was deprived of procedural due process in
this case.
Upon reviewing the transcript of the investigation, the Board
notes that Claimant admitted his absence without permission on the
dates in question. Accordingly, there is no dispute concerning his
commission of the violation. Remaining, however, is the matter of
quantum of discipline assessed. On this point, Carrier refers the
Board to the published Carrier discipline policy. The Discipline
System reads in pertinent part:
"The discipline system will be utilized
....
for frequent
or continued minor offenses committed by and employee who
has demonstrated an unwillingness to change, and who,
there-after, has received either a formal written warning
of possible future discipline or has been assessed a five
day suspension under (1)(b) hereof
....
Form 1 Award No. 12798
Page 3 Docket No. 12669
94-2-93-2-54
(1) Actual Suspension From Service For Five Calendar Days
...(b) This method of discipline may also be used
without prior issuance of a Letter of Warning in serious
cases such as, but not limited to, when an employee
disregards his responsibilities by substantially
depriving the Company of the employee's services by
sleeping on duty
....
(2) Actual Suspension From Service For Ten Calendar Days
If the employee has previously received a five day
suspension, this method of discipline will be used the
second time the employee is found guilty of a minor
offense.
(3) Dismissal From Service
This method of discipline will be used in the most
serious cases
....
In other cases, if the employee has
previously received both a five day suspension and a ten
day suspension, this method will be used the third time
the employee is found guilty of an offense."
Claimant's discipline record indicates a pattern of
absenteeism. He received two letters of review regarding h:s
absenteeism prior to being placed on the Discipline System. Th?
year after he was placed on the Discipline System, he recei%-d a
five-day actual suspension and a ten-day actual suspension t.:c
failure to protect his assignment. Two years later he recei-:-d
another letter of review regarding his excessive absenteeism.
Claimant's pattern of absence -- primarily for personal illness
continued unabated until his dismissal in March of 1992.
It is not unreasonable for Carrier to expect an employee ·_
attend work on a regular basis. While Claimant has offered var:~:us
reasons for his poor attendance record, the fact remains that !:e
appears to be unwilling or unable to protect his assignment
it,
reliable manner. Under the circumstances, Carrier's assessment .;t
the ultimate penalty of dismissal was neither unreasonable :.:,r
excessive.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 12798
Page 4 Docket No. 12669
94-2-93-2-54
QR D 8 R
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified
above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant (s) not
be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of December 1994.