PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2406
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
· CASE NO 22
- and -
AWARD NO. 22
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
Public Law Board
No.
2406 was established pursuant to the provisions of Section 3, Second (Public Law 89-456) of the Railway
Labor Act and the applicable rules of the National Mediation
Board.
The parties, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak,
hereinafter the Carrier) and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employes (hereinafter the Organization) are duly constituted
carrier and labor organization representatives as those terms
are defined
in
Sections 1 and 3 of the Railway Labor Act.
This case is actually two cases which have been combined, NECBtit7E-SD-57D and NEC-BMCX-SD-59D. After hearing and upon the
e
record, this-Board finds that it has jurisdiction to resolve
the following claims:
"The discipline assessed, ten (10) working days suspension
(N EC-MW-S9-57D) and twenty (20) working days suspension
(NEC-MVJ-SD-590) was excessively harsh, arbitrary and
capricious in view of mitigating circumstances as
revealed by a review of the records.
The Claimant's
personal record be cleared of the charges,
and compensation be allowed for the combined thirty (30)
days held from service."
PL Bd.
No. 2406
Case/Award No. 22
Page Two
The Claimant, James F. Devlin, Jr., was assigned to the position
of Maintenance of Way Repairman, with headquarters at Baltimore,
Maryland, during the time period involved in this case. In
case SD-570, he was notified by letter dated October 16, 1978,
to appear for a trial on November 16, 1978, in connection with
six (6) latenesses for work in September and October, 1978. In
case SD-59D, he was notifiedby letter dated November 15, 1978,
to appear for a trial on January 3, 1979, in connection with
eleven (11) more latenesses for work in October and November, 1978.
In both cases, the Claimant was charged with violations of the
Carrier's Rules K and
L, which
read in part: "Employees must
report for duty at the designated time and place..." (Rule K);
and "Employees shall not.. .be absent from duty ...without proper
authority." (Rule
L).
The Claimant appeared at both trials and
was accompanied each time by a duly authorized representative of
the Organization. .The Claimant was found guilty in both cases
(at the trial in case SD-59D, one of the eleven (11) charges of
lateness was withdrawn), and the Claimant was assessed with first
a ten (10) day suspension and then a twenty (20) day suspension.
The record indicates that there is essentially no dispute over
whether the Claimant reported late for work on numerous occasions
between September and tlovember, 1978. The Organization points
out that while tardiness cannot be condoned, there are mitigating
circumstances in this case, and that the discipline assessed was
excessively
harsh inthe--liaht of those circumstances.
PL Bd. No. 2406
Case/Award No. 22
Page Three
The Organization contends that when the Claimant was tardy it was
as a result of matters over which
he had
no control. These included
such matters as illness in his family, power failure, car trouble,
and adverse driving conditions. When the Claimant knew he would
be late, he made efforts to call in as soon as possible. His
supervisor told him that they,would prefer that he came in late
than miss the whole day. The Claimant is regarded as a good
worker, whose supervisor referred to him as "one of my better
mechanics," and who generally makes himself available for work
when needed. At the time of tile latenesses, he was traveling 110
to 120 miles round trip from his home to his work site.
The Carrier argues that it has a right to expect its employees
to report for work on time. The Claimant, it is contended, holds
the highly specialized position of tiaintenance of way Repairman
and it is one which the Carrier cannot readily fill at the start
of the work day if the incumbent is not there on time. The
Carrier argues that habitual lateness cannot be tolerated because
of its disruptive effect on the Carrier°s operations.
This Board has noted the mitigating circumstances argued by the
organization. However, it cannot impose mitigation in light of
the chronic pattern of tardiness shown over an extremely brief
time period. On July 28, 1978, the Claimant was given letter for eight (8) latenesses in June and July, 1978.
came the series of latenesses in September, October and
a
warning
Then
November,
PL Bd. No. 2406
Case/Award No. 22
Page Four
1978, which gave rise to the two instant suspensions. Under the
circumstances of this case, any consideration of mitigation must
give way to the Carrier's need to run an efficient, productive
service. Accordingly, the claim should be denied.
AWARD: Claim denied.
R. Radke, carrier member W. E. LaRue, Organization
Mete
Richard R. Kasher, Chairman
and Neutral Member
December 31, 1981
Philadelphia, PA