In a letter dated August 4,1998, the Claimant was directed to appear for a formal Investigation regarding the following charge:
The Claimant was assessed the discipline of termination from service effective immediately, following a Hearing held on the aforementioned charge on August 26,1998. The Organization appealed the decision in a letter dated October 3, 1998. This appeal was denied as were subsequent appeals.
It is the Carrier's position that the finding of guilt and the discipline imposed was commensurate with the seriousness of the offenses in light of the Claimant's short length of service, and his past record of having been disciplined for lateness. The Carrier contends that it has followed progressive discipline in regards to the Claimant who was afforded a fair and impartial Hearing, contrary to assertions of the Organization.
The Organization contends that the discipline assessed the Claimant is excessive in light of the reasons for the lateness. One incident of lateness was due to a vehicle emergency, for which the Claimant provided a witness testimony. A second incident of lateness, for which the Claimant also provided a document with the time of his whereabouts, occurred when the Claimant was delayed at a motor vehicle inspection Form 1 Award No. 35451
office. The third lateness was for three minutes, which the Organization contends would not have been recognized as late in other Carrier offices, thus the Organization alleges that the Carrier's application of the attendance policy is inconsistent. Additionally, the Organization alleges that the suppression of evidence of at the Hearing was unfair to the Claimant.
A careful review of the record indicates conflicting testimony. The Hearing testimony of Operations Manager Mike Nunemaker is, "One or two minute occurrences we do not process someone into a hearing, however, we do move them along within the prediscipline process . . . ." When asked, "They would not be charged for that?," Nunemaker responded "That's correct . . . three minute occurrence is where we start looking for an employee to charge, if it is an occurrence. . ." A second communication on lateness is in a memorandum in the record by Eugene Price regarding a "Revised Attendance Policy," which reads in pertinent part:
The language in the above excerpt from the Revised Attendance Policy dated December 19, 1997 Memorandum is clear, but the signature on Excessive Absenteeism Policy Acknowledgment of Receipt of this memo in the record is not consistent with four (4) other signatures of the Claimant found on other documents in the record. Further, in Hearing testimony the Claimant denies having signed this receipt, or having signed any documents that state three minutes as the time disciplinary action for lateness begins.
Regardless of whether or not one, two, or three minutes is considered a large enough occurrence to warrant disciplinary action by the Carrier, the Claimant provided three legitimate reasons for being late, at least one of which was likely to be out of his control. While the Claimant is not without culpability in this matter, the Board finds the discipline assessed excessive. Accordingly, the Board orders that the discipline be reduced and the Claimant be returned to work without backpay. Form 1 Award No. 35451
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.