NATIQ`IAL RAILRLM ADJUSTVEM HOARD

SPDCIAL ROAM CF ADJUSlDEM

PUELIC LAW EOAM NO. 1837


HrOTHEMDCD OF mnamw4CE OF wAy EMPIDYEES







NICKEL PLATE, LAKE ERIE AND WESTERN,

AND CLOVER LEAF DISTRICTS



CLAIM C' THE- SYSTEM CCK%W= THAT:
 1. The carrier violated the effective Agreement dated February 17, 1977, when it dismissed claimant M. A. Jones.
 2.. The-dismissalof the claimant was arbitrary and capricious. The carrier failed to. exercise discretion and fair judqment in. assessing the discipline. The claimant now be restored to service with seniority and benefits unimpaired and payment allowed for the assigned Working hours actually lost, less any earnings in the service of the Caqpany. ,FIrmINGSc- .
 This Hoard, upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that.- the Carrier and Employee involved are respectively Carrier and Ehplayee within the err; ng'of.the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and: the- Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved. ORINIGU CF THE EIOAM: .
 The Claimant was 'a four-year veteran employee at the time of events, germane too this dispute.. After investigation he was removed fxan service for five (5) absences in July, six (6) absences in August,. and eighteen '(18) absences in September - all in 1977. According to the Carrier letters- were sent to the Claimant on three (3) dates in July of that year - 13, 15, and 25. Per the carrier, the grievant worked at. least one day in September, 1977 and gave no notice that he would not be able to report. According to the cl aimant he afforded the Carrier medical statements for his absences he might have had in July and August and notice of his inability to report otherwise. He asserts he corked regularly in


July and August: he presented his check stabs for those pericds at the investigation to substantiate such a claim. The grievant denies having worked any days in September, aril at the investigation, presented a doctor's statement to explain his absences during that month. The Claimant asserts 1e advised the appropriate office ahead of time that he hould be absent for an indefinite period in Se-tfmber, 1977, and felt no need to contact the Carrier further. Insofar as receipt of the warning letters fran the Carrier is concerned, the Claimant asserts that, while they may have been dated separately, he received then all at the same time.
 While this Boar finds merit to the Carrier's basis for discipline, we find the extent administered as excessive. We are satisfied that the grievant produced sufficient evidence to explain his absences in September, 1977, although obviously there is no way to assess his claim of having notified the Carrier ahead of tire. Neither can this Board'resolve the question as to whether the Claimant was or was not on duty on the days in July or August, 1977 for which he was charged. ('In that regard, the presentation of a check stub does not establish any conclusive proof unless it differentiates regular from overtime pay.) we note, however, that the Carrier sent three (3) letters in July - the timing and sequence of which the Organization disputes, but none in August or SepteNbez.
 In consequence thereof we shall order that the Claimant be restored to duty immediately.

 Rw0 3q- 1837
                      Awd. I#34 - 1837" -


ANAM

    The Agreement was violated in that dismissal was excessive; the Claimant is returned to duty iiately with full seniority and all other rights unimpaired but wittnut back pay for time lost _


Carrier
                  NeutraL -Member


      Member Organization Manber


Signed this /A27 day of
 in /~.. ~>.: