·. CLOVER LEAF DWICTS

Case Number 58

(MW-BVE-77-10 and 11)






















This Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein
 OPINION:
 Claimant was a Shop Laborer at the Carrier's Rail Welding Plant at Bellevue, Ohio at the time of events germane to this dispute; he had in excess of four years servcie at that time. The Claimant alleged to have suffered an indu§trial injury on the job on November 16, 1976; he also left the facility that day after completing only half of his shift. He reported the injury the following day, November 17, 1976, some hour attd a half into Chat shif.C ctL which Limo. Ile was l;tlam Lo ;t cLinLc fur uhsurvaLiutt. AccurdIith Lo Lhc tlucLut-'S t%·Iua--L, Lho CLaituattL was Lu ruLurn Lu duly utt Nuvumhur 22 of Lhat year. (According Lo the Carrier, the ClaiutanL's reLurtt Cu duty did not come until January 20, 1977.) As to the Claimant's early departure from work on that date, he indicated he had a ride to his home in Cleveland, Ohio and availed himself of such opportunity without prior notice or approval of his superior. As a result of a hearing the Claimant. was charged with failure to promptly report an on-the-job injury and leaving work without permission on November 16, 1976 for which he was assessed a 30day suspension.
 The second part of the Claim in this case arises from events relative to the Claimant's absence from duty without permission on 14 separate days beginning January 21, 1977 to and -2-
 PLB-1837
 AAD. N0. 58
 CASE N0. 58
 Page 3

 including February 11, 1977. The charge of such absences is unrefuted but the Organization asserts mitigating circumstances in that the Claimant had been forced to take the Bellevue assignment after he was affected by a reduction in force as a Trackman at Cleveland. Essentially, the Organizhtion contends that the Claimant was unable financially to relocate to Bellevue and thus was required to travel daily to and from Cleveland -- a distance of several hundred miles. The Claimant asserts his vehicle was disabled during the period of his absence.
 While this Board understands the problems that may
 have befallen the Claimant, we are mindful that he exercised his
 seniority right to the Bellevue job of his own volition. The
 Carrier cannot be expected to provide alternative transportation
 for the Claimant but clearly does have a right to expect him
 to be available for duty in a regular manner. Without intending
 to do so, the Claimant arguably abandoned his employment
 obligation. As to the suspension, we assume that the Claimant's
 removal was effectuated simultaneously with hiB suspension on the
 virst charge. If not, and the Claimant was actually held out of
 duty prior to his removal,we direct that he be paid for half of
 such suspension, concluding that the injury did occur on the job
 and that the suspension as imposed was excessive.- We note that
 the Claimant had no prior discipline and presumably had compiled
 -3-


an acceptable work record prior to the events in this case. Therefore, we order that he be afforded an opportunity to return to duty on a special "last chance" basis. The Claimant should seize upon this opportunity to demonstrate himself as an exemplary employee. This Board will consider such opportunity wasted if the Claimant is ever before it again.

 AWARD:
 The Agreement was not violated by the actions taken by the Carrier; however, the suspension is reduced to 15 days and if the Claimant was actually held out of service, he be paid, with appropriate offsets. The termination shall be altered as set out in the Opinion.

                      I


                  James ,F. Scearce Neutral Member


L
 E. N. Jati s, Jr.' William E. L~ue
 Carrier Member Organizati·.n Member
 Dated 417 S(~ at _r_ . __. ._