AWARD NO. 521
CASE
NO.
555
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. That the Carrier's decision to suspend Southern Region Trackman
W. C. Waltman from service for 10days was unjust.
2. That the Carrier now rescind their decision and pay for all
wage loss as a result of investigation held 1:00 p.m., Septembei,
21,
1994
continuing forward and/or otherwise made whole, because
the Carrier did not introduce substantial, creditable evidence
that proved that the claimant violated the rules enumerated in
their decision, and even i-f' claimant violated the rules enumerated
in their decision, suspension from service is extreme and harsh
discipline under the circumstances.
3. That the Carrier violated the Agreement, particularly but not
limited to Rule 13 and Appendix 11, because the Carrier did not
introduce substantial, credible evidence that proved the claimant
violated the rules enumerated in their decision.
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 an investigation on September 22,
1994.
Pursuant to a request from the General
Chairman, the date was changed to September 21,
1994.
The claimant was charged with being absent from duty on August 22,
23 and 25,
1994,
amd such constituted a violation of Rules B and
1004,
Safety and General Rules for Ail Employees, effective June
30, 1993. -
Pursuant to the investigation the claimant was found guilty and,
was assessed a ten day suspension.
The Board has reviewed the testimony of record and finds that
both the Roadmaster and the claimant's Foreman testified that---__
the claimant's absence on August 22 was excused, and he was not
AWOL on that date. The claimant did report to work on August 24,
but the evidence of record establishes that he did not call in on
the 23rd or 25th and was AWOL on those dates.
The claimant testified that he did not have permission to be
absent from duty on August 23 or 25 because of sickness but on
' 'Sg~
Award No. 521
° Page 2
August 24 he did report for work. The claimant also testified he
did not inform his Foreman or his Roadmaster that he would be
absent from duty on either August 23 or 25, 1994.
Under these cirsumstances there is no question but that claimant
was in violation as found by the Carrier. However, the officer
who established the discipline of a ten day suspension found that
he was absent also on August 22. Such was not the case.
It is impossible to determine whether or not the Carrier would
have assessed the same discipline for two days of absence under
the circumstances herein. On that basis the Board finds that
the ten day discipline should be'reduced to a six day suspension.
The Carrier is directed to pay the claimant for the four days of
the suspension which he served.
AWARD: Claim sustained as per above.
ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply withthis award within
thirty days from the date of this award.
Preston . Moore, Chairman
~2