Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28183
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27649
89-3-87-3-100
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Mary H. Kearney when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Soo Line Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of J. M. Strong for alleged 'violation of rules
11(a) and 11(c)' was without just and sufficient cause, arbitrary and on the
basis of unproven charges (System File D212 I#1627S/800-16-B-69).
(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other
rights unimpaired, his 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 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 began working for the Carrier in 1977, and by the time of
his discharge in October, 1984, held seniority as a Section Laborer. Some
months prior to his dismissal from service, Claimant had been incarcerated at
the Waupun Correctional Institution. In September, 1984, Claimant was on a
work release program from the Institution. He worked all day on September 19
and for five hours on September 20 when he was removed from the property by
corrections officers. On October 29, 1984, the Carrier dismissed Claimant
from service for failure to submit a written request for a leave of absence
for the time period after September 20, 1984, pursuant to Schedule Rules 11(a)
and 11(c) which provide:
"(a) Except in case of accident or illness, an employee who desires to remain away from service
secure permission from his superior officer.
(c) All requests for leave of absence in excess of 5
working days must be made in writing. This also
applies to extension of leave of absence. If granted,
proper authority will be furnished in writing."
Form 1 Award No. 28183
Page 2 Docket No. MW-27649
89-3-87-3-100
After several postponements by mutual agreement of the parties, the Carrier
convened a Hearing on June 13, 1985, in response to the Organization's request
for same on Claimant's behalf. Claimant was advised on June 17, 1985, that
based on the facts developed at the Hearing his dismissal from service was
upheld.
The Organization essentially contends that the reason Claimant did
not return to work in September, 1984, was because he was physically incapable
of performing all the requirements of his job as required due to a work-related back and pelvis inju
in Rule 11(a) of the Schedule Agreement Claimant did not have to secure permission from his superior
Turning to the evidence developed at the Hearing, the Board concludes
that the Carrier sufficiently established that Claimant was removed from the
property by officers of the Waupun Correctional Institution on September 20,
1984, because he had violated a requirement of the work release program. It
is notable that the Carrier's determination was partly based on Claimant's
testimony which indicated that this was, in fact, the reason he left the
property on September 20, 1984, although his statements suggest he was not
precisely knowledgeable about what his infraction at the Institution entailed.
Based on. this evidence and a review of the overall record the Board concludes
that a sufficient basis exists to substantiate the Carrier's determination
that Claimant had violated Rules 11(a) and 11(c) since it established that the
root cause of Claimant's absence on September 20, 1984, and thereafter was his
incarceration and not his physical illness.
In choosing to discipline Claimant by dismissing him, the Carrier
also considered his prior record. During Claimant's tenure with the Carrier
he was assessed four suspensions, in increasing degrees of severity, for
violations similar in nature to the one now at issue. Based on the charge
against Claimant as substantiated at the Hearing, accompanied by Claimant's
unsatisfactory past record, the Board finds insufficient reason to conclude
that the Carrier's assessment of discipline was arbitrary or unreasonable.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. Dever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of November 1989.