AWARD N0. 54
Claim No. 62
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 in behalf of former Eastern Division
Trackman H. J. Shaw, for reinstatement to his former position with
seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and compensation
for wage loss beginning June 19, 1975.
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 dismissed from the service of the
Carrier for his alleged violation of Rule 16. Rule 16 reads as
follows:
"Employees must obey instructions from the proper authority in matters pertaining to their respective branches
of the service.
They must not withhold information, or fail to give all
the facts, regarding irregularities, accidents, personal
injuries or rule violations.
Employees must report for duty as required and those subject to call. for duty will be at their usual calling
place, or Leave information as to where they may be
located. They must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties or substitute other persons in their places
without proper authority."
The claimant had been employed by the Carrier as a trackman on February 25, 1974. The claimant was charged with twenty demerits for
violation of Rule 16 on July 23, 24 and 25 of 1974. Later that year
the claimant was charged with twenty demerits for a violation of the
same rule on October 3, 4, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18. Thereafter on December 18, 1974 the claimant was again absent without authority and
charged with twenty demerits.
At that time the superintendent wrote the claimant a letter advising
him that he had accumulated sixty demerits and that under the Brown
System when an employee acquired sixty demerits he was subject to
dismissal. The claimant was further advised that if his attendance
and work habits did not remain satisfactory that further action wou 1d
be taken. On apuil. 18, 1975 ten demerits were cancelled, and the
claimant's record stood charged with fifty demerits.
'~!.
Q I 5g,~,
Award No. 54
Page 2
However, the investigation involved in this dispute was scheduled
for June 9, 1975 to develop the facts and place the responsibility
in connection with the claimant being absent from duty without proper authority on May 20, 1975. The notide of investigation was
mailed by certified registered mail to the claimant's address of
record. It was not delivered, and a notice was placed by the mail
carrier in the claimant's mail box on June 4, 1975 advising him the
letter was being held at the post office for him to claim. A second
notice was left on June 9, 1975 after the post office was unable to
deliver the letter. It was returned June 19, 1975 unclaimed.
Neither the claimant nor his representative attended the investigation. At the investigation the claimant was found responsible for
violating Rule 16 and was dismissed from the service of the Carrier.
Under the circumstances herein there is no basis to overrule the
decision of the Carrier. The claimant had only been employed for
sixteen months and a substantial part of that time he had been absent without official authority.
AWARD: Claim denied.
Preston J.ore, Chairman
_
~ l v Ct~. ~ s~.M~^°J
Organization Member
Carr'r Member