NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS24WT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number
MS-23158
PARTIES 1110 DISPUTE: ( Lo Sherard, Jr.
(The National Railroad Passenger Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIh4: "As the result of an investigation on August 1,
1978
under the charge: Employee shall not . . . be
absent from duty . . , without proper authority in that you have been
absent without permission from your position as Food Specialist, Chicago
On Board Service Extra Board from June
29, 1978
to date, July 12,
1978.
I was warranted a dismissal.
I feel that the rendering decision was unduly harsh and excessive.
(1) During the course of the investigation, I made a statement
"until something is done, I'm not returning to work". That vas used as
the supportive decision in rendering a dismissal.
(2)
The Infringement upon my constitutional rights (Freedom
of Speech) in which my very words were used against me.
(3)
The hardship which prompted my being absent oar requesting
a leave, was overruled without consideraticn of my loss or suffering and
decided as unreasonable.
An oral hearing would be so desired."
OPINION OF BOARD: The claimant, who is the petitioner herein, entered
the Carrier's service on May
3, 1974.
Prior to his
dismissal on August 15P
1978,
he held a Food Specialist position on the
extra board at carrier's Chicago, Illinois, crew bass.
From the record, it is clear that claimant was dissatisfied with
a collective bargaining Agreement rule providing for double occupancy at
array-Prom-home terminal, or layover point. In an undated letter, received
by the carrier on June
16, 1978,
claimant requested a leave of absence from
June
16, 1978,
to September
15, 1978.
On June
20, 1978,
Carrier's Assistant
Manager, On-Board Services, responded to claimant in part:
Avard Number
23135
Page
2
Docket Number
MS-23158
"Section H, 'Leave of Absence', in the
aforementioned agreement states that
'Fhployees will be granted reasonable
leaves of absence when they can be
spared without interference to the
service.'
Unfortunately, the particular time
for which you request a leave of
absence is peak summer travel and
it is necessary for all employees
to be available for assignment to
provide proper service for our
customers, the traveling public.
I must, therefore, respectfully
decline your request for a leave
of absence from June
16, 1978,
to September
l5s 1978."
The Carrier contends that from June
29, 1978,
to July
12, 1978,
claimant vas subject to "call" and repeated unsuccessful attempts were
made by his supervisors at the Chicago crew base to contact the clainaat
to assign him to vacancies that existed. On July 12,
1978,
claimant vas
notified to appear for a formal investigation on July
21, 1978,
on the
charge
"Your responsibility for your failure
to comply with that portion of National
Railroad Passenger Corporation Rule of
Conduct 'L' which reads: 'amplvyees
shall not . . . . be absent from duty
. . . . without proper authority' in
that you have been absent without permission from your position as Food
Specialist, Chicago On-Board Service
Extra Board from June
29, 1978,
to
dates July 12,
1978.'1
Rule "L" of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Rules
of Conduct, referred to in the letter of charge, reads:
Award Number 23135 Page 3
Docket Number
M-23158
"Employees shall not sleep while on duty
be absent from duty exchange duties or
substitute others in their place, without proper authority."
The claimant failed to appear for the investigation scheduled
for July
21j, 1978.
Re was then notified that the investigation would be
re-scheduled for August 1,
1978.,
on which date it was heldi with claimant
in attendance,, accompanied by his Organization representative. A copy
of the transcript of the investigation has been made a part of the record.
From our review of the transcript, we find that the investigation vas
conducted in a fair and impartial manner. It is clear from the record
that claimant deliberately failed to protect assignments that he stood
to protect during the period June
29, 1978.,
to July 12,
1978,, even
after his request for a leave of absence had been denied.
Unauthorized absences from duty are serious offenses and often
result in dismissal from service. (Third Division Awards 14601., 2226,
5198j,
among others.) In the present case the claimant's actions were
deliberate and there is no proper basis for the Board to interfere with
the discipline imposed.
FINDINGS: The Th rd Division of the Adjustment Board,, after giving the
parties: to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon,, and
upon the whole record and all the evidence., finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute
are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway
labor Act., as approved Jung 21,
1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January
1981.