PARIM TO THX DISPUTE
      the1hood of a of WAW loyv

                  a>id

    thioV and North tostewu Transportation Oom"W

      m Of` s

    ICJ.ala of, thereat t of the Brotherhood that s

      (1) The sIxiw (b0) dapr "maim of Tsr :. O. Mark vas without

        .tat aced sufficient o&*ae, wbolly disproportionate to the alleged

        Off"" acid is- t,test with discipline assess against others

        teed with the sane offense (Carriar·s File D-11-8-446).


        (2) Trackman Clark be ooap ated for all time lost and the disalpline be st:iaktram Us record.


0111 27 HQAR.Ds
        On Jay 30, M6, Claimant was worth as a ?:in a s _n, .

SmS under the supervision of Pbreiam c. D. Gout. fe crew vas working on bam*ea
 rail. per .W Road sad bad teed out one, rail .bthe to ref
 -tire area at noon for lunch. Be Instroated the nee to return at 1200 p.n. to
 abaage out the other brok rail. The record indfaa that the urea walked
 saross the street and ate lea at the Inn. Three of the see red
 at 1200 and wilt back to work. Claimant mad one other am did not return until
 2 sOO p.a. wbsn !he job was nearly eted. The fo told then that he would
 not pay then for the a sa, wberempon Claimant and the o man both asked
 to be allowed to work from 2s00 pm. aatl1 3=.30 pm. The to stated in words
 or substance that he would psy than oft for the rstPS3nif boor and a halt let
 they would have to answer for their whereabouts trvia 12130 until 2100. At that

            - :v

r.
      point Claimant arid the other employee stated they wanted to go hire ,and the fore man responded, "Yon leave me sick, go on home." Claimant and his companion then left for hone and the other two trackman nev*r did return to the work site that day.

      Subsequently all four trackman were charged with failure to protect their aasignant from 12:'..0 to 3:30 p.m. on July 30, 1976, cad failure to s

      p authority to absent themselves frost daffy darift said period. An invest9.

      ption was soh ed arid held on those charges, following which, C1 t and one

      of the other wen ware assess a sixlysw ion acid the other taro israd

      15 days' anrsp ion . .

      ?her* is rirtraally no disnta on tire record relative to the forsdoime

      facts. At tho hearing and investigation Claimant offered as Jnstific·tion ,for

      his tareW retam fvve lunch an assertion that he was snfferixg ftom the fix

      additionally that the food he ate, na& his: ill. We here review the record o

      fully axed we 8o not find this bola explanation puss it*, partiowlarly in

      of th* fact chat when he finally return to the work site CMt did

      not report arV illness to his Rhbest rather s t to work out the balance

      of the day: tar is there, arq satisfaotorg explanation why,, if he was My

      he could not walk across then street at 12 s-V and request leave to absent Y . himself

      baoruse of his sicke"s. Ih all tbo of we are per d that CMaIm t

      did fail to protect his ass t and did fall to secwe proper authority to

      absent himself on July 30, 1976. Nor are ire convinced that Carrier has fafl*d

      in its burden of proof booaase the record shows that Q t reta d briefly

      to the job site at 2100 p.m. where the notice of charg* references the entire

      afm period, 12 00 through 3 00 p.m. Vie strive to deal with realities rather .ifs.,

      sapertechniaalities in labor relations ratters. We are not favorably s


-2_
 bar precedents like Third Division Award 14778 cited bar the Organization which
 lsed into legal. jargon and apparently failed to distiiah betxom the arbi
 tration of labor disputes and criminal court proceedings. Our review of the
 record before us leaves no doubt that Claimant was not prejudiced by the Notice
 of Charges, no near charges we" levied against hire daring the investigation,
 and Carrier has proven by t evidence the substance, of the charges cone-.
 talzod to the Notice of He.
 Fiaxll,r, tbs Organisation acs that the t of discipline assessed
 Chant is ropriately severe and dminatobec e o amplae
 found culpable of the same misconduct, received wsly fifteen days' wasp ion.
 The record,, hovever, contains vted r e that Claimant an Way 19, 1976,
 had been disc for wesaly the saris :is t its which he engaged
 Jalr 309 1976. !lo far as the record , the amyl v&o received a la
 peaallr for the Jtt4 30, 1976, incident had no prior disolpl asses an
 their records. In the ei vie cannot oonol that Carrier acted is
 an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion when it imposed a sore seyar a penalty upon
 Claimant for his sea offense than it did wpm the first offenders. Progressive
 diselpliae, utiam shorted by the facts mW the individual employment records, Is
 the accepted axed established se by which an employer may seek to oontorit the
 employee · s conduct to previously a oated atattdards. It is wall establ
 that a Carrier say, and should, cons the personnel record of the Involved
 employee before asseaLng the amount of discipline to be imposed. See third Diti·
 *ion Awards No. 20032 and 20099. In general terms, like offenders with like records
 should be similarly treated but "'that doers not moan that the Carrier must, in eirory
 Iratanoo, impose the same sentence for like or similar offenses. What it does
 mean 3s that the sentence imposed in each case abonld be r*asoaahle, that is,
 ,3-
 Mist anti proper ooaeiderins the nature of the offense and the paet record of the employee involved." Sere Firert Division Avard lio. 12428. YIMTNG3t
 Publio Law Hoard Ho. 1844,, upon the whole reoord and all of the eridone., fir*ds and holds as follows s
 1. 'fiat the Carrier and lr#loirse involved in this dispute are, reepeatirely, Carrier and HRploree within the weaaiiz of the Railway Labor Aatj
 2. that the Heard has Jiu-tsdiation ores the dispute inYOlyed bsrilaj and

 o. x. Berse., 7wmenbor

 Dated i ~A / / / I 7

 3. that the Agreement was not violated.

      AWARD


Clain 4mied.

 s en,

 csaeNe,er . r