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.
By letter dated November 29, 2001, the Claimant was notified to attend an Investigation on December 6, 2001. The purpose of the Hearing was to determine whether the Claimant was in violation of the Carrier's Attendance Policy by failing to protect his assignment on October 21, 2001, October 29, 2001, November 5, 2001, November 27, 2001 and November 28, 2001.
After reviewing the evidence presented at the Hearing, the Carrier notified the Claimant by letter dated January 3, 2001, that it determined the evidence adduced at the Hearing to be sufficient to support the charge that he was excessively absent in violation of Rules 1.6 and 1.15. Form 1 Award No.13801
The Carrier argues there is no real dispute that the Claimant is frequently absent. It points to the Claimant's record which demonstrates that the Claimant did not have permission to be off on the days in question. It urges the Board to consider the disruption to operations caused by such absenteeism. The Carrier also maintains the Claimant was aware of the Rules and chose to ignore them. It argues that not only is such a defense not mitigating but also it justifies the discipline all the more because employees are expected to familiarize themselves with the rules.
The Organization argues that the Claimant was not guilty of violating the cited Rules and that the assessed discipline was unjust and unwarranted. It maintains the Claimant's absences were due to legitimate illness or other unavoidable cause, which is excusable by law. It also references the Family Medical Leave Act as governing as well as provisions of the contract. Further, the Organization raises several procedural arguments which it believes nullify the discipline assessed.
The Board reviewed the evidence in this case carefully. We recognize that employees are often faced with illnesses or family problems that prevent them from attending work. However, two points are important: First, there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that the Claimant requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Moreover, even if he had been granted such leave, it is necessary that he advise the Carrier in advance of the necessity to take such leave. He must explain the reasons for the leave. Such leave is not a carte blanche excuse to be absent at will. Secondly, even absences for legitimate reasons can reach a point where the employee is no longer of benefit to the employer. Absenteeism is becoming a serious industrial problem. Whenever employees are absent, it disrupts productivity and creates a hardship on other employees.
There is sufficient evidence in this case that the Claimant was excessively absent. The discipline assessed was reasonable and progressive in nature. He must improve his attendance or will probably face further discipline. Form 1 Award No.13801