0 D

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADTt1STMHNT HOARD

Axard Number 23329

THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CG-22800

Martin F. Scheiamea, Referee

(Brotherhood of Railway., Airline and Steamship Clerks, . ~ Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DfSP(1BE.

(Southern Pa-ilway Company

STATFIKERT CF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-8715) that:

Carrier violated the Agreement at Atlanta, Georgia, when it suspended Mr. J. S. Baker, Clerk at Inman Yard, from the service of the Carrier begins October 27, 1976, through November 25, 1976.

Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. J. S. Baker at his regular rate of pay for all time lost during the period October 27 through November 25, 1976.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, J. 3. Baker, after investigation, was
suspended thirty (30) days for tardiness. The incident which led to this dispute ocasred on October 24, 1976. Claimant arrived to work 44 minutes past his scheduled 7:00 A.M. reporting time.

The Organization acknowledges that Claimant was late that day. Eowever, it believes that Carrier violated Rule C-1(c) of the Agreement by considering tardiness more than 30 days previous to October 24, 1976, is determining the penalty to be imposed. It asserts that consideration i of past offenses amounts to arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable action.

RLU.E C-1(c) states:

"(c) No employee rill be disciplined for nary matter of which the Carrier has had. knowledge for more than thirty (30) days."

There can be no doubt that Claimant is guilty of tardiness. He admits as much. His explanation that he overslept is no mitigation is any sense of the word, An employs must insure that he reports to work at his scheduled reporting time. When Claimant failed to do so, he subjected himself to appropriate discipl

Award Number 23329 Page 2

_ Docket Number CL-22800

The final question that remains is the appropriate discipline. it is a well established and a fundamental labor relations principle that the penalty to be assessed, once a violation of a rule or a policy has been established, depends upon many factors. Chief among these, is the seriousness of the proven offense and the employe's prior work history.

i The seriousness of the proven offense is a consideration because regard-

less of an employe's exemplary work record, certain offenses are thought

to be so ser1pus and so unacceptable as to permit a departure from fua

dameatal concepts of progressive discipline. That is, the offense may

be so outrageous so as to allow an employer to act in a way that it may

not act in so-called "minor" discipline cases.

An employe's work record is also an important consideration in determining the discipline to be meted out so as to determine whether progressive discipline is working. That is, an employe's past record is an important consideration is determining the appropriate penalty. Surely, a first time offender in 'Soinor° discipline matters ought to be treated differently than a repeated offender.

3n contrast, an employe's pest record is not a proper consideration in dealing with whether the employs is guilty of the offense he is charged with. This is because our system of labor relations rejects the concept that an employs probably committed this offense because he did it previously. Arbitrators and referees reject the theory that an employs has the propensity to commit an offense.

Thus, here. Carrier was fully warranted - once Claimant's guilt on October 24, 1976, was determined - to examine his pest record is order to determine the proper level of discipline to be imposed. The record indicates that Claimant's time and attendance record is wanting. In Pact, only tyro months previous to the time of this discipline, he had been issued a tea (10) day suspensi Carrier's imposition of a thirty (30) day discipline cannot be construed as being either arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.

FIIMITIGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the

parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and

upon the whole record and ell the evidence, finds and holds:

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;

Award Number 23329 Page 3

Docket Number Q.-22800

That thin Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

That the Agreement vas not violated.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

RATIONAL RAILROAD AnTtJSTIaNT BOARD

By Order of Third Division

ATTEST:

Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago.. nlinois, this 19th day of June 1981.