PJBI Sfl LAU MAkJ ED. 1368
:'__''a"^SS) THE C0119P,ADO L1'i TOi-~I~G PftrU'IAZ Cfl_>?Ai.rl
70
J-'.SS'US.'~S)
BTiOt£I:a <i':OflD
e?'
T'L'1·gL;VE1jArjCE O.:',7,,3y Et,:-?LCYEEJ
girt, r;-'rn-.1Ti
F ~ · ~~ F
r,
~:
...1~_ . :;. fli.~.~??'.. Claim of Mr.
L.
Castro
tote
1?fl hours
at pro rcta
M~e
U-_~-
payM j.-'~. hours at punitive rate of pay when
GOmaiiy '9.'J.'=.Cs
O'.-=r
o
E. Cnst='o from January
'I.
through januar J 19,
19733 .
^s?iT~roP.:.^_,^ya This
Public
L^:J
Board No. 1353 finds thai: the pnr0ca
a-c Car-
r rier and Employee within the meaning of tac Unilwa~7
QhoZ
Len
as amca ed,
and
that.. this Board d has juriodlction.
'^._i this dispute the
Organisation
contends that
the Carrier vlolntW -
."..
Asreom`3nt '4?heir
Mien
suapamded the claimant
for ti%e=2ty
days,
"3
Carrier chnogged the claimant with absenting himself from wool -
_ithcut
permission
and assessed twaiELJ days sta?p
ai siO=d =OT this
allnnra'
violation.
.' ,f,_;_
-=inati0:3 contends
that
oil Friday,
September 29, 1973 the
_a n
III
^ fa
a
.-ar.-
r
- was
a
feeling
_; 3 _ and
mentioned 0umentioned tc.lC'~a_mentioned th2-i _ fact tC ~·__
O~ :T·_
_
G-_3_?-=
h^Lh_?-a :'?? "e call his
general
L'
ifC3:.'Ctk?a1:
and advice him
.,
indefinite ?u^-.
claimant would Le off __ i;Ot°.Z:
for
c^.n a
ndtf"LA.3?--tG' (:e_-=CL,Of''
w_.^_.v
b:
_ause of '? f
lne33_
3
Carrier
testified
chat the
claimant's wife
said he would newa
7>
:0
Q
Of'. One
week.
T=?E.'
claimant states that Y?:'
attempted
to
C:.7_tl
`I
ona
=:_t.'·.°:-"'.e2
two
O=
three
Wm3C
between
then and
D?Cem<b3>
ti
uhaa he
-== _=x0 WT duty. The Carter was 'not notified that the cla-_:n=
=4ill u-v^: the first week
in October
.
:.'t is c:=of t%ed that
when an employee Is ? l 1. that he must not:! .1
s:_2.^-_ Carrier chat he is unable i:0 work because of 2ilnorsu 1023
claimant failed to do this from October
9 vur.ri December 4. The
Carrier did
place
into the investigation the
record of cla'imaWo
OCZUI03 ^^1.^:^1, the Carrier, Including his record
of abGEPCuo"?DT
... :?.s the opinion of the Board that the above infCTmatiCAcold
,..
-_,=, e .E:r=Kt..:a t or Taco.'is '3_y for thn ccn-r! the a ~...s ~? --'cl but ~ u c'~; fo= ; . eci_2===.C:_7 Os the o:i3.GC=' EihD P'eachC:i the decision a^u to ^:^.13
azzont o·_ discipline to be Lose0bod. T
heYV-%3 =?,`J evidence t
.?:
the officer hei."3F1 did take such matter into consideration, ...'=v'- ?_'_
_v t !nG _"r P_ chat
the
claimant i -,·-,t was '- ·.7a
~ _ _.~:. u face ~l._claimant -,`.e guilty.
,. ~~3 L3t~8
<jT;tz~1
i;~a ~_
The
dscipi'_rte nosessed is reasonable, and the Board
fiinc=3
t fl '/
'Cnuon
O?'
Ca!?3e to overrule the decislan of the
l_r'ArDa
Claim denied.
.t~5_4:;i ~OC2 ,5r::~Y~
4~7
C13'iiislan
v
Uri.rr.e
cicr:r a
Sr-,.,,y~j ~ i
`~ Y~e.a~
:._: -*_
~s,, 1975