As a result of charges dated July 17, a Hearing held on August 11 and by letter dated August 24, 2000, the Claimant, a Clerk at East St. Louis, was dismissed for sleeping on duty, being on duty in a position conducive to sleeping and dereliction of duty.
Substantial evidence developed during the Hearing shows that while on duty on July 15, 2000, at approximately 3:00 A.M., the Claimant was observed with her head laying on the steering wheel of a Carrier vehicle and that a driver waited over 20 minutes at the office and that no one had shown up to check him in. Substantial evidence, therefore, supports the Carrier's position that the Claimant engaged in misconduct as charged.
With respect to the amount of discipline, we do not find that dismissal was arbitrary. We recognize that in assessing the discipline of dismissal in this case, the Carrier relied upon a 30-day suspension for the same misconduct on June 13, 2000, and that in Third Division Award 36878 issued this date we rescinded that disciplinary action because of an inadequate transcript. Ordinarily, we would be inclined to reduce a disciplinary action which relies on prior discipline which was rescinded. However, as shown in Third Division Award 36880 also issued this date, the Claimant was aeain found to have engaged in the same misconduct on yet another date.
The purpose of discipline is to send a corrective message to an employee that the employee must comply with the Carrier's Rules. The Claimant does not seem to understand that she cannot sleep while on duty and we are of the opinion that reducing the discipline in this case would not get that message through to the Claimant. Reducing the discipline in this case would serve no purpose. Dismissal was, therefore, not arbitrary.