NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSBOARD

Award limber 23113

THIRD D17ISION Dooket fi=ber MB-23259

Paul C. Carter, Referee

(Phillip Bawling PARTIES 1n DISP9'iT: (National Railroad Passenger Corporation

STAMM= OF CLAIM: "The questions to be presented and briefed are:

1. Whether the decision to terminate Mr, Bowling's employment is supported by clear and convincing evidence?

2. Whether Mr. Bawling was properly charged, in accordance with respondent's Geas:al Rules of Implores Conduct?

3. Whether the penalty of dismissal was excessive under the circumstances?

4. Whether Mr. Bowling's termination was prsteztnal to mask other unlawful, diaoriminatory motives?

5. Whether Mr. Boiling vas cougetently represented by his union at the disciplinary hearing on June 1, 1978?

6. Whether respondent improperly considered outside factors in arriving at its decision to terminate Mr. Bowling's employmmat?"

OPINION OF BOARD: The record shows that rlaifaat entered the service of
the Carrier in October, 19T3, and at the time of his
dismissal, held the position of Red Cap at the Carrier's Union Station in
Washington, D. C. On May 13, 1978r he failed to report for his regular
assignment, with hours 6:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.N. He was notified by certified
latter dated May 24, 1978, to report for inreatigation at 10:00 A.M.,
June 1, 1978, on the charge:

"Violation of that part of National Railroad Passenger Corporation General Role 'K' reading: 'Bsployses must report for duty at the designated tire 0001

Specification (1): In that on Saturday, may 13, 1978, you tailed to report for your ssslgmejkt as red asp, Union Station, Washington. D. C. at the appointed time:

Award amber 23.3
Docket Number NS-23259

Pane 2

The investigation was conducted as scheduled. Claimant was present throughout the investigation and was represented by a Member of the Protective Oounoil, Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks, in accordance with Rules 6-A-1 and 3-F-2 of the applicable Agreement. Following the investigation, claimant was notified of his dismissal from service on June 7, 1978, which letter also set forth his prior service record. A copy of the transcript of the investigation has been made a part of the record.

We have examined the entire record and the several arguments advanced by the Petitioner and the Respondent, and find that the case is properly before the Board. Frost our review of the recd, we find that the Carrier net its burden of proof against the claimant. Awards too nuoerous to require citation uphold the right of the Carrier and this Board to consider an Zaploye's prior service record in discipline ewes.

Considering the entire record, there is no proper basis four disturbing the discipline imposed by the Carrier.

FIADIIMS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier and the floyes involved in tkis dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934=

That this Division of the Adjuatuent Hoard has jurisdiction owes the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement was not violated.

Claim denied.

AATIORAL RAILROAD ADJUB'~IT HOARD
By Order of Third Division

Nitafttive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1981.