PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2142
Docket No. MW-1092
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
to and
Dispute Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
Statement 1. Carrier 'violated the effective Agreement on January.l, 1977, by unfairly and
of unjustly suspending Trackman John Augillard, Jr. from service for three weeks.
Claim 2. Claimant J. Augillard, Jr., shall be compensated for all time lost, and shall
have his seniority and other rights returned unimpaired.
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
January 23, 1978, that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter,
and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.
Claimant Trackman, on December 31, 1976, was regularly assigned as such at
Mays Yard, New Orleans, Louisiana,on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift.,...,Claimant
did not report for work on or before 7:00 AM on December 31, 1976. He did not
receive permission to be absent, and he did not inform anyone that he would be
absent until about 9:00 AM, some two hours after his work shift commenced,
at which time Claimant contacted someone to advise that he had been in an automobile
accident and would not be in to work that day.
Claimant was notified to attend a formal investigation on January 17, 1977 on
the charge of his failure to notify his Supervisor, either before or at work time
that he would be unable to work that day. As a result of that investigation
Carrier concluded that Claimant was guilty as charged. He was suspended from
the service of the company for three weeks as discipline therefor.
The Board finds that it was not error for Carrier to have entered~Claimant's
past record Into the hearing for the purpose as stated therein, to show that
Award Claim denied.
Page 2
AWO 1a
-W4a.
such use thereof was solely limited to a determination of the degree of
penalty, if any, which would be assessed. if Claimant was found guilty.
The Board finds that there was sufficient evidence to support Carrier's conclusion.
It was admitted by Claimant that he did not notify his Supervisor before or at
work time. This was the second such incident within two days of the same
problem. In such limited-circumstances the Board finds that the discipline
assessed was not unreasonable. Third Division Award 14272 (Ives) points out
that:
"unauthorized absences from duty, if proven, are serious offenses
and often result in dismissal from service. Punishment can not be said
to be arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the record and in accordance
with the broad latitude given Carrier's by this Board in the matter
of assessing discipline, we will not upset its punishment decided upon
by the Carrier. Award No. 12438 and others cited therein."
In the circumstances- this Claim will be denied.
n Pal loni, Employee Meter
Carrier Member
Arthur T. Van Wart, Chaittnan
and Neutral Member
Issued at Wilmington, Delaware, April 18, 1979.