NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-19635
Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-7043)
that:
1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Chicago, Illinois
when it failed to afford employe S. Flyer a fair and impartial investigation.
2) Carrier's action in suspending employe Flyer from actual service
for a period of thirty (30) days was without proper cause and therefore arbitrary,
capricious, unfair and unreasonable.
3) Carrier shall now be required to clear the record of the charge made
against employe S, Flyer and pay her for all time lost.
OPINION OF BOARD: Under date of June 30, 1970, Carrier addressed the following
letter to Claimant:
"A review of your work record indicates that you have an
excessive number of days in which you have been late in reporting
for work.
Reporting to your assignment in this office on time is a
condition of your employment and reflects your attention to the
responsibility of the position you hold.
It is expected that there will be a decided improvement in
your adherence to the office rules concerning on time arrival so
that it will not become necessary to deduct the time lost on a
minute basis."
Subsequently, by letter dated November 17, 1970, Carrier gave Claimant
notice of hearing on charges of "being tardy for work on October 22, 1970 and
tardy returning from the lunch period on November 2nd and 4th, 1970," After the
hearing, Carrier suspended Claimant for a thirty-day period for being 45 minutes
late in reporting for the beginning of duty on October 22, 1970, and for being
tardy in returning from lunch on November 2 and 4, 1970. The lateness involved
in the lunch situations were respectively 2 minutes and 1 minute. Carrier made
a deduction from wages for the 45 minutes on October 22, but did not make any
deduction for the late returns from lunch.
··
,.
Award Number 19703 Page 2
Docket Number CL-19635
As regards the October 22 tardiness, Claimant phoned in to say she
had to locate a sitter for an unwell pet. Her reason for the luncheon tardiness was that a discrepan
clock
which controlled her hours. Carrier's lunch room
clock
was also involved in
the discrepancy, since it coincided with her watch but not with the office
clock.
All of these reasons were noted on tardy report forms as "not acceptable" and the hearing was pr
to the underlying reasons. The Organization did not challenge this procedure,
so the issue of whether claimant was tardy for adequate reason is not before
this Board. The issues of record are whether claimant received a fair and impartial hearing and whet
and excessive.
The hearing record cannot be said to be a model, from the standpoint
of letting in all potentially relevant information. On the whole, though, the
record does not reflect any substantive unfairness or material prejudice to
claimant's rights. However, we are concerned that the discipline is excessive
in light of the chain of events preceding the charges. Carrier's June 30, 1970
letter informed claimant that tardy time would be deducted from her wages. This
was done in respect to the forty-five mintues of tardiness on October 22; however,
this sar,.e tardiness was included in the subsequent charges of tardiness and
formed a substantial part of the basis far the discipline of a thirty-day suspension. The Carrier's
sanction of suspension might be imposed for tardiness. The letter only suggested
that tardy time would be deducted from wages and Claimant's testimony at the hearing indicates that
therefore that Carrier's letter tended to mislead Claimant and also that .Carrier
acted unreasonably in imposing two disciplines for the same October 22 tardiness.
Accordingly, we find that the October 22, 1970 tardiness was not a proper subject
for charges and that Carrier abused its discretion in bringing charges thereon.
Thus the charges which are sustained by the record consist of the tardiness of
two minutes after one lunch period and of one minute after another lunch period.
Obviously the discipline of a thirty-day suspension is disproportionately severe
to these offenses and we find that Carrier abused its discretion in assessing
such discipline. We shall therefore sustain the claim.
.,.,.
Ah'ard I:=`.rer 19703 Page 3
Docket Lumber CL-19635
FII:DIIGS:
:::e Third Divizion of
the
Adjustr,znt foard, upon the whole record
and ell
the cvidcace,
finds and
holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the C:rrier and ttA Employer, involved in this dispute are
respectiv:.ly Carrier
:rd L~^~loyes
within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 13e;
That this Division o: tie Ad,ju.^.tm~nt Board has ,jurisdiction over the
dispute ir_':ulvcd herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NAM= RAIIrBC.1D A DJUSTL:J'F,"t DCa.:.D
By Order of %lrird Division
ATTEST:
Executive :ecrcLZry
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April 1973.