Statement Claim on behalf of H. E.'English is which you protest the of discipline assessed as a result of investigation held on
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.
On January 20, 1981, Claimant English was ordered to report to B&B Supervisor Ynirgas who handed him a letter dismissing him from all service of the Carrier, resulting from his poor attendance record and unsatisfactory work performance. At the request of Claimant's representative, an investigation was scheduled and held on February 6, 1981. As a result thereof, Claimant English was notified under date of February 25, 1981 that his dismissal was reaffirmed.
The gravamen of Organization's appeal on behalf of Claimant is that Carrier failed to develop sufficient evidence to support its conclusion and that Carrier prejudiced Claimant's right to present a meaningful
Page 2 Award No. 76 -I s 38The Hoard finds that Clainent was ably and aggressively represented throughout the investigation. The testiimny disclosed that on May 20, 1980, as a result of a incident that occurred in the Hump Yard at the Roanoke Terminal Claimant was sent a letter which, in pertinent part, reads
Claimant apparently continued to demonstrate poor work performance, manifesting itself in chronic absenteeism. Under date of October 22, 1980, Claimant was notified in pertinent part, that he was to,
Claimant again failed to heed the warning issued and was absent several times without permission culminating in an assessment of discipline on November 26, 1980.
Claimant again failed to comply with the warnings or respond to the discipline, and, on December 4, 1980, Carrier assessed him thirty (30) days actual suspension, thus also activating the five (5) day deferred
Page 3 Award No. 76 - I 83 eClaimant was due back on January 12th; he contacted Supervisor Murgas approximately two minutes before reporting time, advising he would be late due to automobile trouble. in addition thereto, claimant's immediate supervisor, Assistant Foreman Twine, complained to Terminal Supervisor Yurgas of Claimant's work performance and his failure to perform in a satisfactory manner. Several times during the period fran the 12th of January until January 20th Claimant was spoken to by his supervisors, arrived at work several hours late or eras totally absent.
Claimant sought to explain his inability to fly with Carrier's requirements by testifying to, and calling witnesses to corroborate, the fact that Claimant had recently experienced the death of a cousin, the loss of an uncle, and grandfather, and that his wife had surgery just prior to giving birth to their baby, as well as having been sick himself with the flu several times during the period in question.
Claimant sought to explain his failure to call in by advising Carrier that he had attempted to call in, but prior to 7:00 AM, the lines were busy, and that he couldn't get through to Mr. Murgas. However, he did advise that he did speak to somebody else whose naare he did not know. Claimant asserted that he always tried to call in and relied several times upon his wife to get the message to Carrier that he was either going to be late or that he was not caning to work.
Organization entered a timely objection to what Organization asserted was an understanding with Claimant's Supervisor that Carrier
The Hoard finds that the naked assertion without any showing of actual prejudice fails to create circumstances that would warrant an overturning of the discipline rendered . The two witnesses that did appear for Claimant offered cumlative testimony to confirm that which claimant had himself testified to concerning his family problems. There is no showing that the absent witnesses c~d have offered any different testinnny, nor was there any proffer that their t estitmny would have been anything more than cumulative.
The Board finds that Claimant readily acknowledged the repeated verbal warnings by carrier concerning his work performance and his absenteeism. The record discloses that Claimant signed for certified letters at each instant of formal warning and discipline.
We cannot conclude from the state of this record that Carrier's actions were arbitrary or capricious, nor can we conclude that the discipline was unwarranted or excessive particularly when Claimant was returning from a thirty-five (35) day suspension due to his chronic absenteeism and poor work performance and immediately began a repetitive pattern.
While we are not unsympathetic to the personal problems Claimant nay have had, notwithstanding, he was repeatedly advised of and made aware of his requirement to notify Carrier. He cannot place the responsibility 'for such notification either on his wife or any third party. It was his duty to inform his supervisor if he was not going to be able to show for work. More importantly, Claimant's repeated