' PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 1838
` Award No. 16
Case No. MW-LP-77-106
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
to and
Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company

Statement 1. The dismissal of Extra Force Laborer M. L. Metz for alleged
of violation of rules pertaining to absenteeism was without just
Claim and sufficient cause and excessively harsh and disproportionate
to the offense with which charged.
2. The Carrier shall return Claimant Metz to service, and
accord him with all time lost.

Findings The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated March 1, 1976, that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.

Claimant was dismissed as a result of his excessive absenteeism and for not notifying or gaining permission from his Supervisor or a proper authority.

The Board finds that Claimant was accorded a fair hearing

pursuant to Rule 33 - "Discipline and Grievances".'

There was sufficient evidence adduced at the formal investigation held on August 30, 1977 to support Carrier's conclusions as to Claimant's culpability.

In view of Claimant's service record the discipline assessed is held to be reasonable. Claimant was hired on May 2, 1977

Award No. 16 Page 2

Y

and up to the date of his dismissal on August 23, 1977 Claimant had absented himself from work a total of seventeen (17) full days and three (3) part days. In fact, the record reflects that

' he missed work on August 1, 4, 9, and 10, two hours on the

12th, 15th, 18th, 19th and 23rd. It further shows that
Claimant had been given continuous warnings concerning the
consequences of his absenteeism without permission and in
such circumstances we find that it cannot be condoned. As
pointed out in Third Division Award 18387 (Rosenbloom)
"The employment relationship and the contract itself
are premised on the understanding that the employees
will perform the work for which they were employed
Additionally, the contract clearly spells out on what
days and under what circumstances employees shall be
excused from reporting for work, demonstrating the
unambiguous intent of the parties that, except where
provided by contract, employees shall be expected to
perform their duties on each day called for by the
_ bulletins under which they work. It follows that if
the Carrier has a right to rely on Employees performing
their duties on each day called for by their bulletins,
the Carrier has a concommittant right to be notified
when these duties will not be performed so that alterna
tive measures may be taken if necessary to carry on the
business of the Carrier."
In the circumstances this Claim will be denied.
Award Claim denied.

A. D. Arnett, Em oyee Member . Edwards.- (Carrier Member

ur an art, ' aifman

. and Neutral Member

Issued at Wilmington, Delaware, November 26, 1979.