Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
According to the record of Investigation, Claimant was a 33hyear employee at the time he was disqual charges and the time and date o1 the Investigation were served and received by Claimant on March 20, 1989. The notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
At the request of the Local Chairman, Carrier postponed the Investigation five days until April 4, 1989. When the Investigation began on that date, Claimant named three desired witnesses and said he was ready to proceed.
Claimant's supervisor testified from his personal notes and from copies of letters issued to Claimant. At the time the supervisor's corrective action began, Claimant had been in the position just over one year. The supervisor's notes and letters spanned 13 months and documented some 20 instances where the supervisor described a variety of payroll input errors, including errors associated with the forms specified in the Notice of Investigation. With few exceptions, each instance was accompanied either by a conference between the supervisor and Claimant or a letter from the supervisor noting the error, describing the corrective action required, and stating the need for improvement. Some of the letters warned of disqualification. Claimant does not deny making the errors or failing to catch the mistakes of his subordinates, nor does he deny attending the counselling conferences or receiving the corrective letters. Form 1 Award No. 30486
At the conclusion of the supervisor's testimony, the organization was granted an extended lunch recess to study exhibits. When it came time for Claimant's witnesses to testify, the Local Chairman represented that they had apparently departed on their own initiative. It was about 4:25 P.M. He requested a continuance until the next day but he made no offer of proof or similar statement about the importance and nature of their testimony to support his request, nor did he explain why he had not secured their attendance during the recess. The Hearing Officer denied the request and the Investigation proceeded to its conclusion without protest. The session ended with the Local chairman reading into the record, despite the Hearing officer's inadmissibility ruling, six statements by other employees describing their past good working relationship with Claimant.
The organization raised both procedural and substantive defenses on the property. Procedurally, it claimed the notice was vague and insufficiently specific. In addition, the refusal to grant the requested continuance was asserted to ,be a fatal impropriety. Both of these contentions lack merit. At no time prior to the commencement of the Investigation, a 15-day period that included a 5-day postponement, did the Organization or Claimant challenge the adequacy of the notice. At the outset of the Investigation, they identified their witnesses and declared readiness to proceed. Regarding the requested continuance, no good cause whatsoever was shown why it should be granted. Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion, on the facts of this record, to deny the request.
Regarding the merits, the organization asserts that there is no evidence of wrongdoing and that Carrier failed to sustain its burden of proof. Moreover, it challenges the admissibility of the supervisor's notes and letters. These contentions must also be rejected. The Investigative record contains substantial evidence of Claimant's lack of qualification that has not been overcome by the Organization. Therefore, Carrier's determination that Claimant was not qualified for the Administrative Accountant position must be sustained.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.