(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and ( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, PARTIES TO DISPprE: ( Express and Station Employes



Carrier violated the Agreement at Washington, D. C., when on April 21, 1978, it unjustly suspended Ms. Z. B. Brice, Executive Clerk, Marketing and Planning Department employee, from service without pay for a period of five days, beginning April 24, and extending through April 28, 1978, for an alleged failure to properly protect her assignment on April 21, 1978.

 For this violation, the Carrier shall be required to compensate Ms. Z. B. Brice for all monetary losses sustained during that unjust suspension period.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, an executive clerk, was given a five-day suspension
 for reporting late to work and failing to protect her
 assignment. On April 21, 1978, claimant arrived at the Carrier's office at
 8:40 a.m. which was ten minutes after her 8:30 a.m. assigned starting time.
 Later that day, the Carrier disciplined the claimant for her tardiness. The
 claimant informed her supervisor that she was tardy because the subway she
 rides had broke down. At the claimant's request, the Carrier held an investiga
 tion on May 2, 1978 in accord with Rule C-1 of the applicable agreement. After
 the investigation, the Carrier declined to revoke the discipline.

 Claimant concedes that she was ten minutes late on April 21, 1978, but she contends her tardiness should be excused due to the unavoidable interruption of service for seventeen minutes. The claimant argues that but for the service interruption she would have timely protected her assignment. The Carrier asserts that the claimant has the ultimate responsibility to report to work on time. While the Carrier admits that claimant was late due to the breaklown in public transportation., it argues that unanticipated commuter delays. To justify the five-day suspension, the Carrier points to the claimant's poor prior attendance record.

 According to Rule C-1, the Carrier may discipline the claimant for cause. In this case, the Carrier has failed to show sufficient cause to assess discipline against the claimant. The claimant could not foresee and had no control over the disruption in public transportation on April 21, 1978. If the trains had been running without delay, claimant would have reported to work on time. The a certain extent, must rely on public transportation and it is unreasonable to hold her accountable for wholly unanticipated delays, Thus, even though claimant was late on April 21, 1978, her tardiness is excused.
                    Docket Number CL-23238


The Carrier may consider the claimant's prior attendance record in determining the proper amount of discipline. However, because claimant's failure to protect her assignment is excused, in this instance, the Carrier was precluded from assessing any discipline against the claimant. Rule C-1(f) specifies the proper remedy. The claimant shall be reimbursed to cover wages she lost during the five-day suspension at the rate of pay in effect at the time she served the suspension.

 FINDINGS: 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 all the evidence, finds and holds:

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

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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained as set forth is the Opinion.


                        NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


Attest: a b/
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of November 1981..

 J i: