NATIONAL RAILROAD AWUSTKMT BOARD
TKIED DIVISION Docket Number CL-23302
Josef P, Sirefmn., Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Haadlars, Zxpress and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STAT?CM UP CLAM Claim of the System Committee at the Brotherhood
(G1't9009)
that:
(1) Carrier violated the agreement rules, particularly Rule 21,
when under date of October 30,
1978
it issued notice wherein
ice.
Robert Titvell,
General Clerk at Proviso Yard, was dismissed from service account investigation
held on October 24,
1978;
and
(2) Carrier shall nor be required to reinstate Mr. Robert Titwell
with all rights
~,r~
, and make him whole for all losses incurred from
October
31, 1978s
ices
until the violation is corrected, to include losses
is connection with fringe benefits withheld..
OPINION Cdr' HOARD: The Claimant, Robert Titvell, was hired by the Carrier on
November
Ss 1973
as a Gen 'al Clark. On October
18, 1978
he was assigned to Position
798
cammeacing at
8
AM. The record establishes
that Titwell, apparently on the way to work, celled the Chief Clerk at
7:10 AM
to say that he had a toothache and wouldn't be is that day. His version is
that she responded "Okay", and then the connection was broken. Claimant then
went to a drugstore far same pain killer, was given a codeine iorm:latioa by
the druggist and went home because this medicine made him drovsy. The Chief
Clerk's version was that when Claimant called, she asked him to hold on, that
she had to consult the Assistant Agent, she put him on hold and checked, but
when she returned to the phone the line was deed.. As Claimant was calling
from a bas atop the Clerk did not try to call him back, nor did she try to
contact him at hams. Instead she notified the foremen on -Ahe fob and left
it up to him.
On October
19, 1978
Claimant was charged. as
follows:
"Your responsibility in connection with your failure to protect your assigrmeat.
"Specifically, your failure to report for duty
while assigned Position
798,
General Clerk, eaa~
maaciag
8:00
AM on October
18, 1978."
Award Number 23341 Page 2
Docket Number CL,233CI2
Ghrrier's Superintendent-Division Manager issued a notice
to Claimant that he vas dismissed from service at the end of his assignment on October 31, 1978.
The organization
contends that Claimants unable to work,
properly called in to so advise the Carriers that he produced a dentist's
note to support his illness, and. that there vas no willful fei.1are to re
port
to work. In effect the i dmiLwt's past record for absenteeism is
being need to support a finding that he was improperly absent from his
job* The Carrier contends that Claimant had no permission to lay off,
that his documentation was
insufficient,
sad his long history of absen-
teeism sad tardiness has been handled through progressive discipline.
It is a:domntic that prior infractions cannot be used to establish the fact of a current charge.
discipline does play a role in this instance, to establish the standard
by which to measure the steps required of Claimant by the Carrier when
he chained an illness which precluded his reporting for work. CLaimaat,
by his own testimony
(p.9
of the transcript) vas aware that he vas required to bring a doctor's certificate to support his
that mere notification of illness vas insufficient. Yet he did not
bring in a dentist's note until after he was gives a chance to do so
after the end of the hearing, strongly suggesting that the prior instructions made no impact on him.
to simply call is yet made no attempt to call back the Chief Clerk when
the lice was disconnected even though he was at a number unknown to that
Clerk. Thus there is sufficient evidence is the record to support a
finding that Claimant did not follow the steps required of him when he
reported is ill.
Termination is not unduly harsh is this instance where Claimant's
price record included seven letters of Rapaimaad and five suspensions, some
of substantial duration, maser dealing with excessive absenteeism. It is
reasonable and justifiable.
FILINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board.,
up6m
the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived a2s1 hearing;
teat the Carrier and the Rmployes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier affil Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, as approved June 21,
1934;
Award Amber 23341 page 3
Docket Hiuuber CL-23302
That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein;
affil
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIOAAL RAMBOAD AWUS24ENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, nl.inois, this 16th day of July 1981.