Carrier shall now restore Claimant Legault to service with his seniority and all other rights unimpaired, shall compensate him for all time lost as a result of the dismissal and shall clear his record of the charges placed against him."
When this claim arose, the Claimant held the sole Utility Clerk position in the Stores Department. The Claimant's position is responsible for the daily unloading of Company materials received by truck and for the posting of office and U.S. Mail. There is no dispute that the Claimant had an abysmal attendance record or that Carrier Officers previously warned him regarding his frequent absences and unscheduled days off. The record reflects that during the period of December 11, 1995 to January 3,1996, the Claimant marked off due to the following reasons:
12/11/95 12/12/95 12/13/95 12/14/95 12/18/95 12/19/95 12/20/95 12/21/95 12/22/95 12/26/95 12/27/95 12/28/95 12/29/95 01/02/96
01/04/96 01/05/96 01/07/96 01/09/96 01/10/96 01/11/96 01/12/96 01/15/96
01/16/96 01/22/96
On many of the dates, the Claimant was a "no show" with no message, and when he did report his absences, he did so by voice mail rather than speaking directly to his Supervisor as Carrier policy mandated. Despite being directed to provide notes from each of his physicians, on January 29, 1996, the Claimant attempted to return to work without the requisite medical verifications. When the Claimant belatedly provided a medical certificate from his attending physician, it indicated his initial treatment commenced on December 18, 1995, whereas the Claimant's first day of absence was on December 11, 1995. Additionally, the record reveals that although the Claimant was released to return to work as of January 16, 1996, as noted above, the Claimant did not report back to the Carrier until January 29, 1996. As a result of the Investigation, the Carrier terminated the Claimant effective February 16, 1996.
There is more than sufficient evidence on this record to support imposition of serious disciplinary action by the Carrier against this employee. The Organization's protests that the Claimant was deprived of a fair and impartial Rearing, "due to the conduct of the hearing officer" are not borne out by the record. The Carrier went to some lengths to demonstrate that it offered to reinstate the Claimant "strictly on a leniency basis" effective April 3, 1996 without pay for time lost, but the Claimant refused the offer and appealed his dismissal to the Board.
On balance, we are persuaded that discharge was a disproportionately severe penalty for the Claimant's time and attendance irregularities, but a six-week suspension without pay for his proven transgression certainly was not unreasonable. The Claimant would have been wise to accept the leniency reinstatement as a "wake-up call" and any loss of pay and benefits after April 3,1996 was attributable solely to his poor judgement in not taking the opportunity for a "last chance" reinstatement. Based on all the foregoing, the Board shall direct the Claimant's reinstatement without pay. Failure by the Claimant to accept shall be deemed a constructive resignation of all employment rights.