t -
AWARD NO. 502
Case No. 536
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 1582
PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO )
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. Carrier's decision to remove former Albuquerque District Track
man Nelson Yazzie from service, effective February 26, 1991, was
unjust.
2. Accordingly; Carrier shnuld nose be required to reinstate the
claimant to service with his seniority rights unimpaired and compensate him for all wages lost from February 26, 1991.
FINDINGS: _This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties
'herein are 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 notified to attend a formal inves-
tigation in Belen, New Mexico on February 28, 1991 concerning his -
alleged absence without proper authority after being instructed to
work on December 30 and 31, 1990 and January 1, 1991 and to deter
mine the facts and place the responsibility, if any, involving
possible violation of Rules 1004 and 1007 of the Safety and General
Rules for All Employees, Form 2629 Standard. The investigation was -
postponed until February 26, 1991.
The Carrier introduced a return receipt on certified mail signed by
Nelson Yazzie, but Air. Yazzie did notappear for the investigation
which was
scheduled for 9:00 a.m. At 9:25 a.m. the hearing commenced.
The claimant's representative protested the continuance of the investigation without the claimant being present.
The Union also objected that the hearing was fiied off the claimant's
seniority district. The Carrier noticed that the location was approximately 500 feet from the end of the seniority district.
Roadmaster P. A. Vaughn testified the claimant was working on the .
Kingman Section at the time of the incident.
Track Supervisor G. L. Rael testified that on the dates in question
the claimant was assigned to the Lee Ranch Section at Grants, New
Mexico. He testified that the claimant was instructed to work those
days. He testified the claimant did not report for work or
show
up
on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. He further testified the claimant
had never asked for permission to be off on those days.
Award No. 502
Page 2
Foreman H. W. Brown testified the claimant worked for him on Saturday, the 29th, and although he had been instructed to work on the
30th, 31st and 1st of January, he did not do so. He testified the
claimant did notattempt to contact him.
The Carrier cited Rule 1004 which states in part: "Employees must
report for duty at the designated time and place. . . They must not
absent themselves from duty . . . Employees must not be absent-from
duty without proper authority."
Pursuant to the investigation, the claimant was dismissed from the
service of the Carrier.
The Board has examined the claimant's record which is very poor.
The claimant bad been dismissed on previous occasions. There is
no justification to set the discharge aside.
AWARD: Claim denied.
Preston/ Moore, Chairman
a z~
~~yr
Union Member
`. i~
rrier Member