On June 17, 2005, Carrier notified Claimant to appear for a formal Investigation on June 29, 2005. The Investigation was postponed and subsequently held on June 30, 20415, to develop alt the facts as to whether or not Claimant faded to show up for work on June 15, 2005, or follow the rules of reporting if absent or late.
On July 18, 2005, Claimant was notified that she had been found guilty of violation of Rule 1.13, Reporting and Complying with Instructions. Claimant was assessed a Level 2 Letter of Reprimand. The charge of alleged violation of Rule 1.15, Duty-Resorting or Absence, was dismissed as not being relevant.
The Carrier argues that Claimant failed to comply with established procedures for notifying her Supervisor that she would be absent from service and the measure of discipline assessed was appropriate.
The facts are Claimant was employed as Telecommunications Technician in the Carrier's Council Bluffs Telecom Repair Facility. The hours of her assignment are 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. On June 15, 2005, at 10:47 A.M., the Claimant called Steve Yeoman, Shop Technician, (who was not her team leader) and told him she had overslept and she would be in at noon and would take a half-a-day vacation. Yeoman testified that he did not approve Claimant's vacation request because he did not have the authority to do so, therefore, he directed Claimant to contact the Manager, Mr. T. L. Heinrichs. Claimant instead called Ms. D. Mercer who works at the front desk. Subsequently, Mercer convinced the Claimant to discuss the matter with the Manager. Mercer then transferred the call to Heinrich after which it was agreed that Claimant would take the remainder of the day off and use it as vacation. Form I Award No. 13922
The Carrier was correct to have dismissed the charge alleging violation of Rule 1.15 because the record substantiates that the Manager approved the Claimant's absence. The approval of the absence, however, does not negate the fact that Claimant violated Rule 1.13 which required her to notify a specifically led. Supervisor in a timely manner that she would not be protecting her
The only issue remaining is whether the discipline was appropriate. This was Claimant's second violation of Rule 1.13 for failing to follow directions regarding attendance in less than 14 months. Claimant was assessed a Level 2 discipline in accordance with the Carrier's FADE Policy, which entailed a Letter of Reprimand and a one-day alternative assignment with pay to develop a corrective action plan. The Board finds and holds that the discipline was appropriate because it was not arbitrary, excessive or capricious, but instead was corrective in nature. The discipline will not be set aside.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.