AWARD NO. 108
Case No. 127
PUBLIC LAT9 BOARD N0. 1582
PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO )
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim in behalf of former Trackman W. D. Wright,
Southern ion, for reinstatement to his former position as Track
man on the Southern Division with seniority, vacation and all other
rights unimpaired and compensation for wage loss beginning October
20, 1978 continuing forward until he is restored to service.
FINDINCS: This. Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties
herein a. Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway
Labor-Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.
In this dispute- the. claimant was employed by the Carrier on December
L, 1975.. His. discipline record is as follows:
October Z9, 1976 - 10 demerits for violation of Rule 15.
November. 3', 1976 - 2Q demerits. for violation of Rule 15.
November L7,. 1976: - ZO demerits for violation of Rule 15.
March L7, L977 - 1Q demerits cancelled for four months
ales= record.
April 26, L977 - Lo demerits for violation of Rule 15.
August 26, 1977 - 10 demerits. cancelled for four months
clear record.
April 26, 1978 - 20 demerits for violation of Rule 13.
April 26, 1978 - S demerits removed.
August 26, .1978. - IO demerits cancelled for four month
clear record.
September 20, 1978 - 30 demerits for violation of rule 15.
This left the claimant with 75 demerits outstanding. The claimant had
been notified by certified mail on June 2, 1978 that his record stood
charged with 55 demerits and that 60 demerits subjected an employee to
dismissal. The claimant was absent from duty without authority on
September 11, 14, 15 and 17, 1978 and was assessed and signed for 30
demerits.
.. .w.
_Ys
Q L8
iS~a.
Award No. 108
Page 2
The Board recognizes that the Organization contends that the clai.mantwas coerced into
signing for
the 30 demerits. It is difficult
to understand what coercion coulc occur since the claimant had to
be well aware that the 30 additional demerits subjected him to discharge.
In five cases where demerits were signed for by the claimant and in
one case where demerits were assessed as a result of a formal investigation, the same rules were involved. The last two instances were
only four and one-half months apart.
It appears to the Board that the claimant did
not
accept his responsibilities
in
working for the Carrier. The claimant herein was notified
by certified letter dated October 19, 1978 that. he was to attend a
formal investigation to be held at 1:00 p.m. on October 27, 1978. The
letter was returned unclaimed.
Pursuant to the investigation the claimant was notified by certified
letter dated October 31, 1978 of the investigating committees decision.
The letter was returned. witlz the notation: 'Moved, left no address."
Those letters had been sent to the claimant's last known address listed
with the Carrier.
Under the circumstances the Board finds no justification to overrule
the decision of the Carrier.
9JARD : Claim denied-
res.ton
. R
re, airman
Organization member
i7,1k
arrzet/Memeer