The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
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.
At the relevant time, the Claimant was a Repairman with 19 years of service and held seniority in the Carrier's Maintenance of Way Track Department. The Claimant was assigned to the Maintenance of Way Shop at Canton, Ohio. Form 1 Award No. 36559
After the Claimant was absent from his position on May 18, 19, June 1 and 2, 1995, Hearing was held and the Claimant received a five-day suspension.
Substantial evidence supports the Carrier's determination that the Claimant engaged in misconduct. The Carrier's Absenteeism Policy states that four occasions of absence within a six month period places an employee in violation of that policy. The Claimant's record shows that in addition to the May 18, 19, June 1 and 2, 1995 absences, the Claimant was absent on December 28, 1994 and April 24, 1995. The Claimant acknowledged that he was aware that accumulating four instances of absence between December 28, 1994 and June 2, 1995 was in violation of the Absenteeism Policy. As a result of the absences on these occasions, the Carrier has shown that the Claimant violated the Absenteeism Policy.
Under the circumstances, a five-day suspension is not arbitrary. The Claimant has a lengthy discipline record. Most recently prior to this disciplinary action, the Claimant received a written reprimand on December 19, 1994 for excessive absenteeism. The Claimant was also counseled in December 1993 about his absences; was given a copy of the Absenteeism Policy; and was warned that future violations may result in discipline. Under the circumstances, a rive day suspension in this case falls within the realm of reasonable discipline for the demonstrated misconduct.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.