NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 24948
THIRD
DIVISION
Locket Number MW-25132
Thomas F. Carey, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES
TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The fifty (50) demerits imposed upon Truck Driver R. Eorio,
resulting in his dismissal, for alleged failure to report for duty at South
Plainfield on May 20 and 21, 1981 was without just and sufficient cause (System
Locket 714).
(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other
rights unimpaired, his record cleared of the charge leveled against him and he
shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered.·
OPINION
OF BOARD: ' Claimant was employed as a Boom Truck Driver at South
Plainfield, New Jersey where'this dispute arose. Claimant
was working under the supervision of Assistant Supervisor of Track, T. Mingolla.
The Carrier charges that on may 20 and 21, 1981, the Claimant absented
himself from duty without authorization and without informing his supervisor
that he would not be reporting to service those days.
This incident resulted in a formal investigation held on June 3,
1981, in which the following charge was addressed:
"Alleged failure to report for duty as Boom Truck Driver at your
headquarters, South Plainfield, on the following dates:
May 20, 21, 1981.
In light of your previous
attendance record,
this constitutes
excessive absenteeism.&
As a result of this investigation, the Claimant was discharged from
service.
The Carrier contends that the record is uncontroverted that the
Claimant did not report for duty on the claimed dates. Nor did he inform his
supervisor that he would be absent on those days. The Carrier insists that in
light of these facts and Claimants poor attendance record, dismissal is an
appropriate penalty.
The Organization points out that the Claimant did not appear at the
investigation. It contends that the Claimant was not given reasonable advance
notice of the hearing as is required by Rule 5-c-1(a) of the controlling
Agreement. That rule reads:
Award Number 24948 Page 2
Locket Number MW-25132
·5-c-1. Advance Notice of Trial
(a) An employee who is accused of an offense and who is directed to
report for a trial therefor shall be given reasonable advance notice
in writing of the exact charge on which he is to be tried and the
time and place of the trial.a
The Organization insists that the Claimant never received Carrier's
notice of the trial. it argues that prior notice of the hearing is a substantial
right which may not be abrogated by the Carrier. Therefore, it asks that the
Claimant be restored to service with full back pay and benefits.
The entire record has been reviewed. It establishes that the Carrier
sent Claimant a notice of the charges and hearing date via Certified Mail No.
P34 6227503. That letter was sent to the Claimant's residence. However, the
record reveals that the Claimant never claimed the letter at the post office.
The Carrier cannot be faulted for the failure of the Claimant to pick
up his mail. It notified him in a timely manner of the investigation in accordance
with Rule 5-c-1(a).
In
Third Division Award No. 24650, this Board held that ·the Carrier
introduced credible evidence that the Claimant received personal service notifying
him of the trial date, even though he did not appear at the hearing. Here,
Claimant received the same notice, though he apparently chose not to claim the
letter which contained the relevant information.
The Claimant's discipline record was also examined to determine the
appropriateness of the penalty. The record indicates that Claimant had
accumulated 85 demerits within the prior year for excessive absenteeism. Such
a record is extremely poor. In view of that record and the Claimant's proven
guilt, this Board must uphold the Carrier's dismissal of the Claimant.
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 Mnployes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Mnployes 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.
t
Award Number 24948 Page 3
Locket Number MW-25132
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Nancy J er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of August 1984.