The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
,fit the time of her dismissal. Claimant had been assigned as a Reservations Sales .gent, at Carrier's Western Reservation Sales Office. By letter of July 28; 1993, she was directed to report for a formal Investigation into the following charge:
Claimant was assessed the discipline of termination from service, effective immediately. The discipline was appealed through the normal channels, including the highest Carrier officer authorized to handle such matters. Following conference on the property, it remained unresolved.
It is the position of the Carrier that it has met its burden of persuasion in this case. Carrier notes that there is no dispute whether Claimant was absent or tardy on the dates contained in the statement of charge (supra). Claimant did not dispute her absences but attempted to mitigate them by asserting that her health condition was the main reason for her absences. Carrier points out that Claimant did not come forward with a medical certificate until long after the Hearing. Even at that point, she provided Carrier with only a statement that she had visited a doctor's office on June 7, 1994. The doctor's note did not stipulate that she was unable to work on the dates listed in the letter of charges.
The Organization maintains that the Claimant's record does not rise to the level of excessive absenteeism, and that Carrier's assessment of discipline disregarded Claimant's illness and her efforts to be a responsible employee. The Organization points out that Claimant followed proper procedures and reported via telephone each time that she would not be available for work on the dates presented in the statement of charge. Such reporting, acknowledged by the Carrier employee with whom she spoke, constitutes permission to be absent on the dates in question. Thus, she should not now be punished for following proper procedure. In support of its position, the Organization notes that Special Board of Adjustment No. 1056, Case 10, held that an employee's obligation concerning attendance must "be balanced against the reality that employees are human and that human beings become unable to work from time to time because they are sick or injured." Form I Award No. 32027
While this Board recognizes that illness or injury may be a mitigating factor in an employee's attendance record, in the instant case Claimant's prior record does not incline us to accept that Claimant's illness excuses her multiple absences and tardiness in so short a period of time. Before Carrier resorted to the ultimate penalty of dismissal, Claimant was counseled, given a formal reprimand, assessed a three-day deferred suspension and a six-day actual suspension. Claimant clearly was on notice that continued incidents of poor attendance and/or tardiness could result in her dismissal. Further, absent assurances to the contrary, a simple confirmation by Carrier that it understood she would be absent does not constitute either condonation or approval of that absence. Thus, it is not accurate to suggest that Claimant was "bend-sided." accordingly, under the circumstances. the Carrier's assessment of discipline was neither excessive nor arbitrary.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.