PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 1582


PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
 TO )
 DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim is in behalf of Trackman J. L. Donaldson and Alvin Mitchell "for reinstatement to their former positions with vacation, seniority and all other rights unimpaired and payment for
 -_1 ,7aqe loss beginning April 25, 1975."

 ?IrdDIh?GS: This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties :rein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway ,_cbor Hct, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

      _; This dispute the claimants were charged with violating u1e 16 in ct:ev were al;;,unt crithouc proper authority.


~:;iaimant Donaldson testified that he was assigned to work on March' 21 and that he did not have permission to be absent and that he was absent. (See Pace 4 of the Transcript) Claimant Donaldson had only been employed for c:nr.roximately 18 months and had three previous vio-;:~ior.s u_~l;ule 16. under those circumstances the Board Finds no justiication to overrule the decision of the Carrier.

 ~:%~imant ,Mitchell had been an employee for approximately one year and
 arht months and had five previous violations of Rule 16. Claimant
 ii~-ceell and the other three employees charged at the investigation
 e_e ail aotified by certified United States mail to attend the ins>es~_;ation. The other three employees 'testified they -received the letter sad did attend the investigation, but claimant Mitchell =ailed to ap-
 _.= cr _=west a =:oscpoaement.

 the Organization contends that the claimants were pre-judged and that the claimants herein were discriminated against inasmuch as the other t-..ao employees charged with violation of Rule 16 on the same date were ,:_-instacecl on a leniency basis.

 '"he Board has examined the transcript of record and the testimony and _.: unable to find any evidence of pre-judgment. There is substantial evidence of record which is more than adequate for the Carrier to reach : reasonable finding that the claimants were guilty as charged.
 _scri:~iua~ion, as charged by the Organization, means that the Carrier
 '.-,:.s failed to treat employees on a comparable basis. Comparable basis
 Ms .._..:~nabl·r near [:he some amount of ee_vice and siail;-_ discipline :=cords.
                                              W Q [6_06D-


                                              AWARD N0. 52 Page 2


In this case the Carrier reviewed the discipline records of the two other employees who were discharged along with the two claimants herein and agreed to grant leniency to the other two employees inasmuch as their discipline records and tenure of service was not similar to those of the claimants herein. The issue herein is not actually discrimination but is equal application of discipline.

 The Board has carefully examined the transcript of record and the testimony and finds no basis to overrule the decision of the Carrier.

 AWARD:. Claims denied.

                            Preston ~. ~Yo re, C,nairman

                                      i


                              01


                            Organization Member


                            Carriur.Memner