NICKEL PLATE, LAKE ERIE AND WESTERN,
AND (',LOVER LEAF DISTRICTS
PUBLIC LAW HOAM 1837
(MW-FTf-77-14 )
Case No. 36
PAR= 'IC) DISPIM:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of way aiployees
vs
Norfolk and Western Railway Company
STATE OF
CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the effective Agreanent dated
February 1, 1951, on January 25, 1978, when it dismissed
claimant T. R. Zinmerman.
2. The dismissal of claimant was excessive, unwarranted and
unjustified. The claimant now be restored to service with
seniority and befits unimpaired and payment allowed for
the assigned working hours actually lost, less any earnings
in the service of the oanpany..
FINDING
This Board upon the whole record and all evidence finds that:
The carrier and the anployee involved in this dispute are
respectively carrier and anployee within the meaning of the Railway
labor Act, as amended.
This Hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
OPINION:
Claimant is classified as a wielder-Helper with a seniority
date of March 19, 1971. The Claimant was absent from duty from
August 17, 1977, to October 13 of that year; he was also off without authority on November 29, 1977, and walked off the job on
December 1, 1977. According to the Carrier, it considered prior
discipline involving a thirty-day actual suspension for absenteeism
earlier in 1977. According to the Claimant, he thought he had been
Awd. I#36 - 1837
fired - althcugh he had no official word to that effect - and
thus failed to return to duty rn August 17, 1977. He admits being
absent on November 29, but contends he told the Agent he was leaving
early on December 1, 1977. ,
This Board finds no error on the Carrier's part in adjudging
the Claimant's -responsibility for his absence- If the Claimant
thought he had been terminated, it was incumbent upon him to. inquire
of the Carrier as to the validity of such event- Neither did the
Carrier err in considering prior discipline to determine the extent
of discipline to assess. in this instance- .
However,.. we mte=this employee was of relatively long service;
further, he was candid in recognizing his fault in the period of
extended absence- Therefore we shall direct that the Carrier give
him one last chance to
dacnstrate his
worthiness as an exemplary
employee.
The
Claimant would do well to capitalize on. this opportunity.-
Ai~D:
Claim is denied in principle; however, the Claimant shall be
afforded a
last chance opportunity for employment, reinstated with
full seniority and other rights unimpaired but without back pay for
time lost.
James. F. Scearce
Neutral Member
G. C. Edwards W. E. LaRue
Carrier Manber Organization Kanber