Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28091
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28254
89-3-88-3-32
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of Steel Erection Foreman K. A. Collins for
alleged violation of Rules 604, 606, General Rule A and General Rule B was
without just and sufficient cause, on the basis of unproven charges and
in violation of the Agreement (System File D-102/870473).
(2) The Claimant shall be reinstated to service with seniority and
all other rights unimpaired, his record cleared of the charges 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 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 was employed as a steel erection foreman. On December 1,
1986, Claimant was directed to attend a formal Investigation of the charge:
"While you were employed on Steel Erection
Gang 1972 at Point of Rocks, Wyoming on November
26, 1986, you alledgedly [sic] absented yourself
from your assignment without authority while
still claiming compensation for the hours of
7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. exclusive of lunch period
submitted on your Form 1054-2, Labor Report, the
same date."
Form 1 Award No. 28091
Page 2 Docket No. MW-28254
89-3-88-3-32
The Hearing was held on December 17, 1986, and, as a result, Claimant was
dismissed from service. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging
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 finding
that the Claimant was guilty of being absent from his assignment without
authority and then claiming compensation for that time.
Once this Board has determined that the Claimant was properly found
guilty, we next must turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. We
note that Claimant had a long period of service with the Carrier. However,
given his work record, which includes a previous dismissal and previous
discipline for falsifying his time card, this Board must find that the Carrier
did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it terminated his
employment, despite his long service with the Carrier. Therefore, the claim
must be denied.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. 'Wr - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this llth day of September 1989.