(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis



(1) The dismissal of Track Laborer Eugene Luster was without just or sufficient cause; on the basis of unproven charges; exceedingly disproportionate to the offense with which charged (System File TRRA 1978-1).

(2) The Carrier shall restore Claimant Luster to service and extend to him all other benefits and remedies prescribed in Rule 24(d)."

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was a regularly assigned Track Laborer
in Carrier's District Gang No. 1, with assigned
hours 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P. M., Monday through Friday.

On October 13, 1977, he was charged with failure to protect his assignment, with hearing scheduled for 10:00 A.M., October 25, 1977. Due to the claimant allegedly not being able to find the location of the hearing scheduled for October 25, 1977, at the request of the General Chairman of the Organization, another hearing was scheduled for 10:00 A. M., November 8, 1977. The hearing was held on November 8 and a copy of the transcript has been made a part of the record. Claimant was advised of his dismissal from service on November 17, 1977.

From a careful review of the transcript of the hearing and the submissions of the parties, we find that none of claimant's substantive procedural rights was vi claimant called the Supervisor on October 4, 1977, and stated that he had automobile trouble. He was advised by the Supervisor to get his car fixed. According to the Supervisor, the claimant again called about 10:00 A. M., on October 5 and said that he had overslept and that his car still was not fixed. About 4:00 P. M., October 10 claimant reported to the Supervisor to pick up his check. At the investigation the Supervisor stated in part:





It is evident from the record that claimant was expected to work on October 5, 1977, but failed to do so. There is no record that he worked-or reported to anyone on October 6 and 7, and actually did not report for work on October 10, but reported only for the purpose of picking up his check. The claimant did not have permission to be absent on these dates.

The record also shows that claimant, who entered Carrier's service on August 23, 1974, had previously been suspended on four different occasions for failing to protect his assignment, and suspended on another occasion for being late for work. It is apparent that the prior discipline did not have the desired effect.

Based on the entire record, the Board finds no proper basis for interfering with the discipline imposed by the Carrier.

In reaching our decision the Board has not considered any dates after October 10, 1977, when, as the record shows, the Supervisor "notified him then that he was out of service."





                    Docket Number MW-22773


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board bas jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1979.