NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-24052
Gilbert H. Vernon, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company:
Appeal from the decision of the Carrier in the case of Signal Foremen John R. Holt who was
dismissed from service for allegedly absenting himself from service in violation of Rule 11 of the C
Engineering Department Rules." (Carrier File No. 2-SG-580)
OPINION OF BOARD: On June
18, 1979,
the Carrier directed the Claimant to
attend an investigation
scheduled for
June 26,
1979,
on charges relating to his
absence from work between April
30
and June 15,
1979.
The investigation was held as scheduled. Subsequent
to the investigation, the Claimant was dismissed.
The basic facts in this case are not in dispute. The Claimant was a signal foreman on the
Carrier's St. Louis East End Division. The Claimant did not show for his assignment April
30, 1979.
The
Claimant also failed to appear for his assignment or contact the Carrier until June
15, 1979.
Mr. J. W.
Breeden, Supervisor, testified that he made several attempts to contact the Claimant through the pos
authorities and local police and was unable to locate him. On June
15, 1979,
the Claimant contacted the
supervisor and requested that he be allowed to return to work.
The Organization essentially argues that the dismissal is unjustifiably severe and that the
Carrier failed to take into consideration the medical reasons for the Claimant's absence. At the hea
Claimant testified he suffered head injuries in an automobile accident on April 26,
1979.
The Organization,
based on the doctor's written diagnosis of the Claimant asserts that the injuries impaired the Claim
abilities to function rationally for a period of time after the accident and thus, caused him to lea
assignment. The excuse read as follows:
"To wham it may concern from A. Sattin, M.D. Indianapolis VA Hospital, Dept. of
Psychiatry. Subject: John R. Holt. Mr. Holt was seen here today for psychiatric
evaluation. One month ago following an accident he apparently had a fugue state
(dissociative reaction) which caused him to impulsively leave his regular employment.
At present this seems to have subsided."
Fugue, according to the Organization, is defined as "... a state of psychological amnesia during whi
seems to behave in a conscious and rational way, although upon return to normal consciousness he can
remember the period of time nor what he did during it; temporary flight from reality".
Award Number 24319 Page 2
Docket Number SG-24052
The Carrier, on the other hand, believes that the Claimant's medical excuse deserves little
weight when the entire transcript is considered.
It is the opinion of the Board, after considering the arguments of the Parties, that the Claimant's
defense fails to overcome or mitigate the prima facie case put forth by the Carrier. It is the Board
conclusion that there is substantial evidence to support the Claimant's findings that the Claimant's
excuse deserves little weight. First, it conflicts with the story the Claimant gave Mr. Breeden when
returned and attempted to return to work. Mr. Breeden testified that in response to the question as
he had been, Mr. Holt replied that he had some business to take care of and that he also had some tr
that had to be taken care of. Second, the medical excuse conflicts with the other testimony of the C
which would lead a reasonable mind to conclude that he willfully failed to report for his assignment
because he did not want to work for the Carrier any longer. He testified as follows:
"Q39
Mr. Holt, please advise why you did not comply with this rule prior to being
off the twenty-seven days you are charged with absenteeism in this
investigation?
A39
I had no further intentions of further employment by the B&O
Railroad.
Q40 Mr. Holt, is it true that upon your initial leave without permission .from the
Railroad that you had no intention of returning to work? A40 . Yes, that is true."
Regarding the Organization's argument that discharge is too severe, the Board notes that under
ordinary circumstances discharge would be excessive for the first offense of absenteeism. However, t
circumstances in this case are unique. The Claimant is a foreman who is presumed to be more exemplar
his conduct. The length of the absence and its willful nature are also significant. Moreover, the Bo
that the initial cause for the Claimant's absence was apparently his desire not to continue his empl
this respect the Claimant is seen as having effectively resigned. His later desire to return to work
indicating that he had no intention of continuing his employment does not overcome the Carrier's per
termination of that employment relationship. If the Board were to require the Carrier to offer reins
the Claimant, it would be setting a precedent that any employs who willfully abandons his position i
of reinstatement. Such a finding would be an unwarranted conclusion.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evide
finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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,
1931+;
Award Number 24319 Page
3
Docket Number SG-24o52
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 RAIIROAD AD,TUSTMW BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
/ Rosemarie Branch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of April
1983.