This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The Claimant was scheduled to report for work September 24, 1998. He did not report to work at his assigned starting time. On that same date, he was notified to attend an Investigation to determine responsibility, if any, for his failure to report. Subsequent to the Investigation held on October 7, 1998, the Claimant was found guilty and dismissed from service.
The Organization has argued that the Investigation was not fair and impartial; that the circumstances resulting in the Claimant's failure to appear for work were beyond his control; and finally, that the discipline was harsh and excessive. The Carrier has denied all of the Organization's arguments.
The Board's review finds the Carrier complied with the Agreement in providing a fair and impartial Investigation. It also finds no doubt that the Carrier has met its burden of proof. The Claimant's Foreman testified that the Claimant did not report for duty at 7:00 A.M., and in fact, called at 8:40 A.M. stating "that he overslept." The Claimant was informed to call the Signal Supervisor, who testified that the Claimant told him that he had been out hunting and became "stuck." The Claimant testified at the Investigation that he had not reported for duty on September 24, 1998, "because I was stuck out in the prairie of Wyoming, with no means of communication available until I was returned back to my home at 8:40 in the morning." There is clear proof of a Rule violation with guilt established.
The only question left for our consideration is the discipline assessed. The Organization argues that it is harsh and excessive. The Board has reviewed the Carrier's action, considering the Claimant's past disciplinary record. We find that the Claimant has a record which persuades the Board that this discipline should not be disturbed. The Claimant waived Investigation and accepted a reprimand on September 2, 1997 and again waived Investigation and accepted a 30-day suspension for failure to follow instructions. On February 20, 1998, the Claimant was assessed a 20-day suspension for failure to properly report for duty. On April 8, 1998, the Claimant signed an action plan agreeing to "absolutely no tardiness or unexcused absences from work," unless prearranged with his Supervisor. On June 25, 1998, following another Form 1 Award No. 36066
Investigation, the Claimant was again found to have failed to properly report for duty and was assessed a 20-day suspension. Given the Claimant's past discipline and the Action Plan which he failed to follow, the Board cannot find the Carrier's actions as either harsh or excessive. The Claimant violated the Agreement and the discipline assessed by the Carrier will not be disturbed.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.