This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

According to the record of formal investigation conducted March 1, 2007, Claimant Van Deusen had been employed an Assistant Telecam~ Maintainer at Minneapolis, MN for approximately two years when this dispute arose over Carrier's imposition of a ten (10) day disciplinary suspension for his failure to attend a second scheduled day of Safety Training.

The facts surrounding that incident are straightforward. Claimant had been scheduled to attend a two-day safety review on Thursday and Friday; February 15 and 16, 2007. He attended the first session on February 15 without incident, but did not show for the second day on February 16. For that incident, Carrier found him in violation of GCOR Rule 1.13 - Reporting and Complying with Instructions and issued the discipline here challenged by the Organization.

Although the hearing transcript before the Board is somewhat attenuated, it is apparent from Claimant Van Deusen's testimony that on the afternoon of the first training day he had advised Training Specialist Mary Steely that he "probably would not be in on Friday." He concedes he provided no explanation for his problem. Upon awakening the next morning, he says he then attempted to call S&C Supervisor Tom Byers to inform him that he could not attend class, but that Byers was not in the office. Although he did not leave a voice mail message to that effect Claimant says he then e-mailed Byers that he was unable to attend training.

Carrier maintains that Claimant was well aware of his schedule and deliberately chose not to attend training as instructed. He had no authority to simply advise a training officer that he would not show up, nor did Ms. Steely have either any right to excuse him. Additionally, it is undisputed that Mr. Byers did not give Claimant permission to absent himself, and that he never informed Byers of the circumstances preventing him from attending. In short, Claimant was in clear violation of his employer's absenteeism policy and the discipline assessed was totally consistent with Carrier's progressive discipline policies.

The Organization argues that Carrier's Hearing Officer failed to discharge his responsibility to conduct a fair and impartial hearing by first identifying Mr.

Byers as a witness with potentially relevant testimony to offer, summoning him to attend Claimant's investigation but then not calling him a witness. Carrier thus deprived the Organization of its valuable right to cross-examine. Further, the Organization contends, the 10-day suspension imposed here was disproportionate to the severity of the offense and unduly severe in relation to penalties assessed for more serious misconduct on the part of other employees.

Claimant was responsible for failing to comply with instructions as charged when he did not report for Safety Training on February lfi. For the reason stated above, the discipline imposed will be reduced to five (5) days and Claimant shall be made whole for the difference in pay and benefits lost.

AWARD