NATIONAL RAILROAD ALUUSTMENT BOARD
TSTRD DIVISION Locket Number CL-24154
John B. LaRocco, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
(Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Commiteee of the Brotherhood (GL-9460)
that:
(a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement
at Barstow, California on May 1, 1980 when it wrongfully discharged Mr. R. G.
Palmer, and
(b) Mr. R. G. Palmer shall now be restored to service and paid for
all loss of wages and benefits commencing May 1, 1980.
OPINION OF BOARD: By notice dated April 23, 1980, the Carrier charged
Claimant with violating General Rules 13 and 15.
Specifically, Claimant, a Storehelper, was allegedly absent without proper
authority between 7:00 a. m. and 8:00 a. m. on April 21, 1980.
At the investigation held on April 29, 1980, both the District
Material Supervisor and the Material Supervisor testified that Claimant failed
to report to work at his assigned starting time on April 21, 1980. The
Material Supervisor related that he received a telephone call from Claimant at
approximately 8:00 a. m. Claimant said that his electric clock was one hour
behind the actual time due to a power failure. Claimant also indicated that he
really did not want to work. Nonetheless, the Material Supervisor ordered
Claimant to immediately report to his regular assignment. Claimant complied.
At the investigation, Claimant read a letter he had obtained from the local
utility company which verified that electric power had been out for about one
hour in Claimant's neighborhood. Claimant testified that, as a result of the
power loss, his electric alarm clock rang about one hour later than usual.
Claimant did not realize that he was one hour late for work until 8:00 a.m.
In this case, there is no doubt that Claimant failed to timely
report for his regular assignment on April 21, 1980. The organization argues
that Claimant's tardiness should be excused. Claimant emphatically blamed the
utility company for his predicament. This Board, however, cannot accept
Claimant's excuse. Claimant was solely responsible for reporting to work on
time. He cannot successfully evade his responsibility by attempting to place
the blame on the utility company. To insure that he punctually protected his
assignment, Claimant should have taken whatever steps were necessary so that he
would not oversleep. Thus, we conclude that Claimant committed the charged
offense.
Award Number 24552 Page 2
Locket Number CL-24154
The final issue in this case is whether or not the penalty of
discharge was commensurate with the proven offense. The organization asserts
that permanent dismissal is extremely harsh punishment for a single instance of
tardiness. Relying on Claimant's poor prior personal record, the Carrier
contends that dismissal is warranted since Claimant repeatedly and flagrantly
committed similar offenses. After carefully evaluating all the circumstances,
we must uphold the penalty. During his short tenure with the Carrier, Claimant
had been cited and disciplined three times for being absent without proper
authority. The prior warnings and suspension should have encouraged Claimant
to timely and regularly report for his assignment. Instead, the record reveals
that Claimant made no effort to improve his attendance record. While we may
agree with the Organization's position that the April 21, 1980 incident,
standing alone, did not justify dismissal, the Carrier properly considered
Claimants past record and his short length of service in determining the
appropriate measure of discipline. Third Division Award No. 21834 (Marx).
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, 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, 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 BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attes~
Nancy .f. er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of November, 1983