Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27872
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27967
89-3-87-3-583
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee W. F. Euker when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Kansas City Southern Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of Laborer S. R. Freeman for alleged violation of
Rule 'Q' on June 26 and 27, 1986 and July 11 and 29, 1986 was without just and
sufficient cause (System File 013.31-355).
(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other
rights unimpaired and 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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
This is
a
discipline case involving a Track Laborer
who
was charged
with unauthorized absences from duty on June 26, 27, and July 1, and 29, 1986,
in violation of Rule Q of the Carrier's Operating Rules. A formal Investigation was conducted on Aug
compensaton was progressed on the property and is now presented for our consideration.
During the period in question, the Claimant was assigned to Extra
Gang 493, Tuesday through Friday, working a 10 hour tour of duty. At the
trial, the Foreman of the Extra Gang testified that Claimant did not contact
him prior to his absences on the dates in question, as required by Rule Q of
Carrier's Operating Rules. There is no real disagreement on this point nor is
there a dispute as to the Claimant's awareness and understanding of Rule Q.
Claimant offered various
excuses
for each of the dates listed, unfortunately
these excuses, even assuming they were credible, do not explain why Claimant
was prevented from contacting Carrier in advance as required by the aforesaid
Rule Q.
Form 1 Award No. 27872
Page 2 Docket No. MW-27967
89-3-87-3-583
The record indicates that Claimant has had a history of absenteeism.
In Third Division Award 22965, the same Claimant was restored to service without compensation after
of occasions for being absent without leave and, in fact, was dismissed early
in his career for the same offense, and later reinstated by the Carrier. It is
apparent Claimant has had a real problem fulfilling his work responsibilities
and Carrier decided it could no longer tolerate his continued unexplained absences from duty. In Thi
"Claimant has been discharged for violation of
Carrier Rule Q (attendance rule) once before. He
was reinstated by Carrier on a leniency basis after
being out of service for about three months. He knew
the rules; he saw fit to violate them. His behavior
did not improve after his reinstatement; he did not
respond to Carrier attempts at his rehabilitation.
The need for employes to appear at work on a regular
and timely basis is well known in industrial relations and has a special importance in the railroad
industry, where time schedules are critical."
Under the circumstances, the Board does not view the discipline
assessed as an abuse of Carrier's discretion and we will deny the Claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest l(
Nancy J /Doer - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of May 1989.