Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27000
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27061
88-3-86-3-113
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edwin H. Benn 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 dismissal of Mr. Yusuf Abdur-Rahman was without just and
sufficient cause (System Docket CR-1423).
(2) The resignation of Mr. Yusuf Abdur-Rahman was obtained through
coercion and duress and it was thereby invalid.
(3) Because of the aforesaid violations, Claimant Yusuf Abdur-Rahman
shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired 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 employes 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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Claimant was first employed by the Carrier on September 24, 1979.
As a result of charges dated September 2, 1983, hearing ultimately held on
September 15, 1983, and by letter dated September 20, 1983, Claimant was
dismissed from service for insubordination, providing false information,
violation of Safety Rule 3030 on August 18, 1983, and failing to conduct
himself so as to avoid personal injury.
By letter dated September 23, 1983, Claimant informed the Carrier in
writing as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 27000
Page 2 Docket No. MW-27061
88-3-86-3-113
"Due to the fact that I have found another
job I am submitting my resignation.
I appreciate having had the opportunity to
work under Conrail."
On November 11, 1983, Claimant signed a Letter of Agreement in connection with the settlement of
which provided as follows:
"In consideration of the settlement made to
me this date by the Consolidated Rail Corporation, I hereby agree that I will not present
myself for employment or reemployment at anytime
in the future by the Consolidated Rail Corporation."
Claimant wrote the Carrier a letter dated March 8, 1985, stating:
"Based on the information I received from
Roseanne Amos on October, 1984 that I was
dismissed from Conrail September 20, 1983, I
applied for unemployment compensation and was
approved February 28, 1985. Therefore, based on
Rule 26(a) I am filing a grievance because my
rights weren't protected under Rule 27 Section
1(a) and Rule 27 Section 1(d)."
This matter was heard before the Division on July 14, 1987. Although
notified to attend, Claimant did not appear.
First, Claimant's grievance of March 8, 1985, is untimely and we have
no jurisdiction to consider the matter. Claimant was dismissed by letter
dated September 20, 1983. Under Rule 27, Section 3(a), Claimant had fifteen
days to appeal the disciplinary action. He did not do so. Giving Claimant
the benefit of the doubt that he did not receive the dismissal notice,
nevertheless, Claimant admits that he gained knowledge of the dismissal in
October 1984 and yet did nothing until March 8, 1985 - a period far beyond the
fifteen day limit for taking appropriate steps to perfect an appeal.
Second, Claimant voluntarily resigned on September 23, 1983, and also
agreed on November 11, 1983, that he would not present himself for employment
or reemployment with the Carrier. Having voluntarily terminated his employment (not once, but twice)
harassed into resigning or waiving any rights to reemployment. We therefore
have no basis upon which to consider his Claim.
Form 1 Award No. 27000
Page 3 Docket No. MW-27061
88-3-86-3-113
Third, and notwithstanding the above, even if we could consider the
merits of the Claim, substantial evidence exists in the record to support the
Carrier's determination that Claimant committed the offenses with which he was
charged. The transcript of the hearing indicates that although the matter was
originally scheduled for September 9, 1983, and was postponed at Claimant's
request, Claimant did not attend the hearing held on September 15, 1983.
Evidence introduced at the hearing shows that on August 16, 1983, Claimant was
instructed by the Gang Foreman to stand aside and clear all tracks in accord
with Safety Rule 3208. Claimant told the Gang Foreman that he could see all
tracks and argued for approximately fifteen minutes concerning the instruction
given to him. The record further reveals that on August 18, 1983, Claimant
left his assigned job at approximately 10:00 a.m. without permission and did
not return until after 12:00 p.m. On that same date Claimant stated that he
was suffering from diarrhea and wished to be taken to the shop when, in
reality, he went to see the District Claim Agent to discuss the settlement of
a prior injury claim. According to the Claim Agent, when he met with Claimant
at 2:30 p.m. on August 18, 1983, Claimant did not appear to be suffering from
any ailment or injury. A B&B Mechanic testified that on August 18, 1983, at
approximately 12:15 p.m., he observed Claimant fall over a visible silver
painted air line that was approximately one foot off the ground. The Safety
Supervisor testified that he conducted an investigation of the injury and
concluded that Claimant could have avoided the area entirely to get to his
destination by a different and shorter route which was an established roadway
that was free of obstacles and as such violated Safety Rule 3030 which requires the use of establish
to be alert to avoid tripping and slipping hazards. Thus we conclude that
substantial evidence exists in the record to show that Claimant was insubordinate to his Foreman; pr
meet with his claim agent; violated Safety Rule 3030 which resulted in his
injury and failed to conduct himself in a manner so as to avoid personal
injury as charged. Inasmuch as Claimant's past disciplinary record shows a
five day suspension for violation of safety rules as well as a thirty day
suspension for insubordination, we cannot say that dismissal was arbitrary or
capricious amounting to an abuse of the Carrier's discretion.
Under the circumstances, we cannot conclude that by proceeding with
the hearing in absentia, the Carrier committed error. The record demonstrates
that Claimant was granted an initial postponement at his request and the
Carrier took all the necessary steps to notify Claimant of the rescheduled
date. Claimant's failure to appear was at his own peril. We have considered
the Organization's other procedural arguments and find them to be without
merit.
For all of the above reasons, we must deny the Claim.
Form 1 Award No. 27000
Page 4 Docket No. MW-27061
88-3-86-3-113
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By order of Third Division
Attest: z
·~-~T
Nancy J. evAk- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of April 1988.