Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
Award No. 7.Wg0
v. Docket No. 105
Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employes
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The company violated the agreement when it dismissed A. P. Williams on
October 5, 1984, for being absent without permission on August 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31,
1984, and in consideration of his past work record.
2. The company should now be requried to restore the claimant to service with all
seniority and pay him for each work day he has missed since October 5, 1984.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
The Claimant was dismissed from service after a six (6) day period of absence
without permission in August of 1984. The Carrier noted a past work record containing
at least five (5) suspensions and several letters of warning concerning AWOL, including
four (4) suspensions assessed within one and one half years of August of 1984. As a
result, the Carrier dismissed the Employee from service.
On the property, the Claimant conceded that he was absent without permission for
the six days in question but argued that the penalty of dismissal was to severe. Thus, the
Carrier properly asserts that the only issue here is whether or not disciplinary action
imposed was excessive.
The Claimant has advised that his sister was ill and that he requested his wife to
notify Supervisory Personnel of his pending absence. However, the record shows that the
Claimant was aware that the notification was not effective and he is also aware that the
responsibility is upon himself and not others.
Although the Board recognizes that the Employee has been in Carrier service for a
significant period of time, our review of the record continuously reminds us that this
Employee has been warned repeatedly concerning his propensity to be absent without
permission. He has certainly been warned on numerous occasions and the Company has
~'~ ~3 G 6
- x c"~o ? 0
followed the type of progressive disciplinary action one would expect with a long-term
Employee. I4 'e are unable to find anything in the record which dispells our conclusion
that this Employee places personal considerations above his employment status and that
he continuously disregards his obligations to report to work on a regular basis. A Board
such as this may not exercise leniency and we are unable to conclude that the Carrier
was arbitrary or capricious when it determined that it could no longer tolerate the type
of conduct.
FIN DIN GS
The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence finds:
The parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as amended.
This Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The parties to said dispute were given due and proper notice of hearing thereon.
AWARD
Claim denied.
&bseph ~. Sickles
b'
iryln and Neutral M tuber
. S. Gibbins Hugh Harper
Carrier Member Organization Member
.0
s 4
44
D Me
- 2 -