Statement Claim on behalf of H. Smith for reinstatement with pay for all of time lost, seniority and vacation unimpaired. Claim
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 Tabor 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, with a. seniority date of July 17, 1981, was working on June 2, 1982, with section Gang #1 in the vicinity of Park Street, Roanoke. Claimant left the property at approximately 3:30 PM. Under date of June 4th Claimant was given notice by letter dismissing him from Carrier's service for leaving his assignment without permission.
Claimant, through his representative requested an investigation, and said investigation was scheduled for and held on June 15, 1982. As a result of the investigation Claimant was notified under date of June 29, 1982, that his dismissal was reaffirned.
Organization advances the appeal on behalf of Claimant on the premise that the discipline should be rendered void because it was founded'upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. In support
Page 2 Award No. 79 -~ 8
Carrier, in support of its case, points to the uncontradicted testimony of Terminal Supervisor Steele, who testified that he first noticed Claimant Smith's absence at approximately 3:30 PM. Supervisor Steele then contacted Claimant's two immediate supervisors, Assistant Foremen. Twine and Abbott, and inquired of Claimant's whereabouts. Neither of the foremen knew where Claimant had gone.
The circumstances surrounding the inquiry concerning Claimant's whereabouts arose when it was determined that the gang would have to work overtime in order to complete a particular work assignment. It appeared from Claimant's own testimony that Claimant had other, more pressing plans.
In view of Claimant's own admissions, the Board must conclude that sufficient credible testimony was adduced at the hearing to support Carrier's conclusion. We deem it appropriate to conclude that no reasonable minds may differ that Claimant's self-serving testimony that he walked by Supervisor Steel when Steel was in the middle of an important telephone call and preoccupied therewith, waving to him without saying anything, while Claimant was caning from the men's roan and exiting the building, did not constitute permission to leave early.
Claimant had approximately eleven (11) months of seniority. During that time he accumulated no discipline record. In view of the length of time that Claimant has been separated from service we are satisfied that the discipline has served its purpose to both punish Claimant for his offensive behavior, and put other employees on notice that like behavior will be dealt with promptly and firmly. Accordingly, we will direct that Claimant be returned to service, but without pay, subject to return to service physical. Further, we direct that Claimant meet with his union representative and his supervisor to have the circtmnstances of his restoration to service carefully explained to him so that he clearly understands his responsibility to comply with Carrier's rules.