Award No. 108
Case No. 108
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
TO and
DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company
STATEMENT "(1) That the Agreement was violated when the Carrier
OF CLAIM dismissed welder helper Jeffrey M. James on
charges not sustained by the record, said
action being unduly harsh and in abuse of
discretion.
(2) Because of the aforesaid violation, the Carrier
will now be required to reinstate Mr. James
with seniority and all rights restored, unimpaired,
with compensation for all wage loss suffered."
FINDINGS
Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the
parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted
under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and
the subject matter.
Claimant had been employed by Carrier on May 18, 1984. On April
4, 1985, a letter was addressed to him indicating that he had been
terminated for failure to protect his
assignment. Carrier
in that
letter indicated that he had been absent without proper authority
from February 28, 1985 through April 4, 1985. Following a hearing
held on May 21, 1985, carrier indicated that it felt the evidence
justified its earlier conclusions.
a1430t-
d~
a -
_2_
There is no question but that Claimant did not work on the dates
indicated by Carrier. It is the position of the Employees that
Petitioner had a communications problem with some of hi s, supervisors.
Nevertheless, as the record indicates, there were a series of telephone conversations with Claimant following his absence in February.
During that time Claimant apoligized for example on one occasion
for not being at work and promised to return. His reasons for being
absent varied from having the flu to food poisoning to lack of transportation and that he had been fishing for abalone. The evidence
further indicates that Carrier made at least eleven attempts to
telephone claimant to find out whether he, was, coming to work but
received no response to the telephone call and no return of the
call when messages were left.
It is the Board's view that Claimant was afforded an opportunity
to present evidence to support his position for the absences and
failed to do so. His doctor's excuse presented subsequent to his
termination was inadequate for that purpose and dial not justify
the absences during the entire period in any event. The record is
clear that Claimant was guilty of the charges of failing to protect
his position without proper authority and Carrier was within its
rights under the Agreement to terminate him. The claim must be
denied.
9'-13q1-
AWARD
Claim denied.
Neutral-Chairman
C.F.Foose, Employee Memb-
San Francisco, California
January )-I~ , 1987
Carrier Member