Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26764
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26457
88-3-85-3-199
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Refere Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
(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 five (5) days of suspension imposed upon Painter J. L.
Griggs for 'failure to report for duty on December 28, 1983' was unwarranted
and without just and sufficient cause and in violation of the Agreement
(System Docket CR-787-D).
(2) The claimant's record shall be cleared of the charge leveled
against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employees involved in
this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
Claimant is employed as a repairman by the Carrier at its Canton
M. W. Repair Shop in Canton, Ohio. On December 28, 1983, Claimant was absent
from service. Claimant subsequently was notified to attend a Hearing in
connection with the charge:
"Failure to report for duty on December 28,
1983, at Canton M of W Shop, Canton, Ohio, which
in light of your previous attendance record
(Absent April 11, 1983, April 28, 1983, May 10,
1983, May 11, 1983, May 16, 1983, May 26, 1983,
June 2, 1983, June 3, 1983, July 22, 1983,
August 1, 1983, October 7, 1983, October 27,
1983, November 29, 1983, December 8, 1983,
December 29, 1983; Late Start September 7, 1983,
September 16, 1983; and Early Quit June 1, 1983)
constitutes excessive absenteeism."
Form 1 Award No. 26764
Page 2 Docket No. MW-26457
88-3-85-3-199
The Hearing was held on February 8, 1984. On February 15, 1984, Claimant was
notified that he had been assessed a five-day suspension for the charged
offense. The Organization thereafter filed a Claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging the suspension.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and
we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Carrier's finding that the Cl
certainly has a right to expect a better attendance record for its employees.
The Carrier also has a right to reasonably define "excessive absenteeism," and
Claimant's absenteeism record was clearly excessive. Hence, the Carrier had a
right to find him guilty of the offense.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence to
support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. In this ca
has previously received a written warning and a thirty-day suspension for the
same offense. Hence, we do not find that the Carrier's action in issuing the
Claimant a five-day suspension was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Therefore, the Claim is denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:,
Nancy 3: ever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1988.