Statement Claim is made that Claimant K. R. Salmons be reinstated to of service of Norfolk and Western Railway and paid for all lost Claim titre, with vacation, seniority and all other rights unimpaired citing Riles 33 and 35 of the Current Maintenance of Way
Findings The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier atx1 Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as an-ended, 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 Salmons was initially employed by Carrier as an Extra Gang Laborer on July 6, 1978. On August 12, 1980, at approximately 2:00 AM, Claimant left the camp cars and went bane. On August 13, 1980 Claimant contacted Jerry Foster, a Roadnasters' Clerk, at approximately 11:30 AM to advise that he off sick fran the T-4 Tie Gang.
Under date of August 25, 1980,'Claitnant received a notice which, in pertinent part, read:
The investigation was held pursuant to the applicable schedule rules, and, as a result thereof, Claimant's dismissal was upheld.
The Board has read the transcript of the investigation and finds that Claimant was ably and aggressively represented, that there exists ample proof, including Claimant's own admissions to the charges that he was absent without permission, -to support the charge of continued violation of Rule -26. There but remains the issue of the appropriateness of the discipline.
Dismissal is the ultimate penalty that an employee can experience at the hands of an employer. Claimant herein admittedly was absent without permission, notwithstanding his protestations that he felt ill and needed to get home. Nor was his excuse palatable concerning his prior absences for which he received ample counselling (as well as a thirty (30) day actual suspension received by Claimant not sixty (60) days prior to this incident).
Carrier's have an unqualified need to have employees give prompt and faithfulness attendance to their work schedules. To be othenaise vnxld create a chaotic and wholly unmanageable situation for an employer. As was stated in Second Division Award No. 2066, in pertinent part:
In reviewing the record the Board finds that the discipline imposed was appropriate to the continued course' of behavior manifested by Claimant. However, in view of the short term of Claimant's service prior to his discharge, the Board feels that the discipline should be mxiified at this posture. Claimant has had ample opportunity to reflect upon the kind of service required of him by his employer. Claimant sought to explain his prior absenteeism to the Board by stating that he was experiencing a great deal of domestic tunmil at home. While the Board is not wholly unsympathetic to that explanation, nonetheless, it is painfully clear to Claimant that while in the service of his employer his first obligation is to meet the requirements of service established by the Carrier.
Therefore, the Board will direct Claimant restored to service, without pay, subject to a six month probationary period. Attendant therewith it is an additional requirement that claimant meet with his representative and immediate supervisor and have the condition of probation explained to him. During the period of probation infractions of Carrier's rules and regulations which otherwise would not be dischargeable, in Claimant's case, subject to the provisions of his Investigation Bile, are and will be dischargeable offenses.