This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
At the time the events at issue occurred, Claimant E. C. Jacobson was working as a Laborer, Monday through Thursday, on Production Crew No. 3 under the supervision of Foreman P. Stinson.
On May 5, 2001, the Claimant suffered an on-duty personal injury to his right knee. He tiled an accident report, but did not miss work or see a doctor. The Claimant continued to feel sore, however, and on August 3, 2001, be was examined by a doctor who told him to wait awhile to see if there was any improvement. On Friday, September 7, 2001, the Claimant returned to the doctor, and additional appointments were scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, September 10 and 11. Prior to work on September 10 and 11, the Claimant telephoned Foreman Stinson to request permission to miss work. Stinson did not answer the call, so the Claimant left a message.
On September 12, the Claimant had a court appointment in conjunction with his child custody case. Therefore, prior to work, he again telephoned Foreman Stinson for permission to be absent, but again he was only able to leave a voicemail message. Later that same day, the Claimant also telephoned Track Program Supervisor D. Balmer to inquire where to report for work on September 13. Unknown to the Claimant, Foreman Stinson had become ill and had not worked on September 10, 11, and 12, 2001. Therefore, Stinson also had not advised Supervisor Balmer of the Claimant's absences on those dates. Supervisor Balmer, upon hearing that the Claimant had been absent due to his injury, told the Claimant that he could not return to work until he had been cleared by Health Services.
On September 17, 2001, the Claimant was issued three Notices of Investigation in connection with his absences on September 10, 11, 12, and 13, 2001. Following a Hearing on September 24, 2001, the following findings were made:
With respect to September 12, however, it was determined that the Claimant failed to protect his position and did not make any attempt to notify his supervisor of his absence. Consequently, the Claimant was assessed a letter of warning for violating GCOR Rule 1.15 Duty-Reporting or Absence. On November 16, 2001, the Organization filed the instant claim on behalf of the Claimant which, having been properly processed is now before the Board for adjudication.
It is undisputed that the Claimant was charged with identical violations in connection with his absences on September 10, 11, 12, and 13, 2001. Significantly, he was cleared of the charges relative to September 10 and 11 because he had attempted to contact his Foreman to explain his need to be absent. The charges in connection with September 13 were dismissed because although the Claimant wanted to return to work on that date, Supervisor Balmer told him that he could not come back until he had obtained clearance from the Health Services Department.
As to the day in question, September 12, the Claimant gave unrebutted testimony that he called Foreman Stinson that morning and left a message, just as he had on the two prior days. He followed that call up with a call to Balmer later in the afternoon of September 12 because he had been unsuccessful in talking personally to Foreman Stinson.
The Carrier contends that discipline was appropriate because Balmer had instructed employees to contact him when they were going to be absent, and the Claimant had not complied with that instruction. However, the Claimant's conduct on September 12, when he called Foreman Stinson, was exactly the same as his conduct on September 10 and 11. Inasmuch as the Carrier dismissed the charges against the Claimant in connection with the method he used to report his absences Form I Award No. 37380
on September 10 and 11, it was unfair to discipline him for using the same method on September 12. Clearly, the Claimant attempted to report his absences to his immediate supervisor, Stinson. It was not the Claimant's fault that Stinson, due to his own absence, never relayed the Claimant's messages to Supervisor Balmer. In these circumstances, the claim must be sustained, and the letter of discipline imposed upon the Claimant must be removed from his file.
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.