Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27942
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. TD-28345
89-3-88-3-198
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Appeal of ten (10) days suspension assessed Assistant Chief Train
Dispatcher E. W. Simkunas July 22, 1987 - Carrier file MEC-ATDA-SD-69D"
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.
Claimant is employed by Carrier on the New York Division as an Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher.
"You failed to be available on May 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1987 while assigned as
Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher at '40' Office,
Penn Station, New York, which in light of your
previous attendance record constitutes excessive
absenteeism."
An investigation into the charges was held on July 14, 1987. As
a result of that investigation, Claimant was found guilty as charged and
assessed a ten (10) day suspension. A copy of the transcript of that investigation has been made a p
that Claimant was afforded all procedural and substantive rights guaranteed by
Agreement, that the investigation was handled fairly, and that Claimant was
guilty as charged.
Form 1 Award No. 27942
Page 2 Docket No. TD-28345
89-3-88-3-198
The Board, however, is compelled to take issue with Carrier on the
procedures it followed in this case in assessing discipline. The record
reveals that Claimant had a poor attendance record for the two years previous
to the date of the charge. It does not, however, contain any evidence that
Claimant was cautioned about time off or that he was disciplined in any manner
for it. The record also reveals that the days listed in the charges were days
for which Claimant had marked off on account of a knee and back injury. When
it is considered that Claimant had never been disciplined for absenteeism and
that the time off for which he was charged resulted from an injury, it becomes
arbitrary and capricious to level a ten (10) day suspension based on those
facts. This Board, therefore, will reduce the ten (10) day suspension to a
written reprimand.
The Board, however, is compelled to state that it does not condone
absenteeism and that the Carrier has a right to expect regular attendance from
all of its employees. It need not keep employees on its rolls who do not come
to work on time on a regular basis, regardless of the cause. Claimant in this
instance should be aware that he has been officially warned about his poor
attendance, and that if he continues to mark off on an excessive basis, his
employment with Carrier could be terminated. This Board will not look kindly
on any future cases involving this Claimant where excessive absenteeism is
involved.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
a-o~6eo -
Nancy J. -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of June 1989.