,



                                          Case No. 71


        PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

        and

        DISPUTE Southern Pacific'Transportation Company (Pacific Lines)

        STATEMENT A: "1. That the Carrier violated the provisions of the current

        OF CLAIM agreement when in letter dated March 1, 1982, it advised

        Track Laborer D. L. Allen to the effect that:

        'Evidence adduced at a hearing conducted in the

        office of Regional M of W Manager Dunsmuir,

        California, January 29, 1982, established a

        responsibility for your unauthurized absences

        and tardiness, which is in violation of Rules

        810 and 811 of the General Rules and Regulations

        'For reasons stated, your services with the

        Southern Pacific Transporation Company are hereby

        suspended for a period of thirty (30) days,

        commencing March 8, 1982, through and including

        April 6, 1982.'


                      2. That Track Laborer D. L. Alien be compensated any and all time loss suffered during the suspension period

                      and that his personal record be cleared of any and all _

                      charges placed thereon."


                      B: "1. That the Carrier violated the provisions of the current 8 agreement when subsequent to fuimal hearings conducted January 6, 1983, it suspended Track Laborer 0. L. Allen from service for a period of sixty (60) days commencing January 11, 1_983, through March 11, 1983, for his alleged violation o, Carrier's kule M; 8la , and a portion of the General Notice, said action being excessive, unduly harsh and in abuse of discretion.


                      2. That Track Laborer D. L. Allen be compensated for all time lost from his assigned position and the charges placed on his personal record now be expunged therefrom."


                      C: "1. That the Carrier violated the provisions of the current agreement when in letter cited iebrqory 15, 19,13, it notified Track Laborer D. L. Allen to the effect that

PLB - 2439 - 2 -AWD I#71

                  evidence adduced at the formal hearing conducted on January 27, 1983, established his responsibility in connection with his unauthorized absences on August 3, 1982, December 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 1982, and thus was in violation of Carrier's Rule 810 and, for reasons thereof, his services with the Carrier were thereby terminated, said action :,eing excessive and in abuse of discretion.


              2. That Track Laborer D. L. Allen now be reinstated to

              his former position with seniority and all other rights -

              restored unimpaired, pay for all time lost therefrom,

              and that the charges placed on his personal record be

              expunged therefrom."


    FINDINGS -


    Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties-herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-4t)6 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.


    This dispute involves three separate claims, each handled by separate investigations, though all claims are related. The record indicates that in Lhe first of the charges claimant was clearly responsible (and admitted it! for being absent without autwrity on three days and being tardy on an additional three days. Ba~.ed on that particular series or infractions, he w<is accoroed a suspension of thirty j30) days.


    In the second incident, claimant was charged with responsiblity for not reporting an alleged personal injury to himself while at work. He did not appear at the hearing at which this matter was investigated. Subsequently, he was found guilty of the charges and suspended, for a period of sixty calendar days.


    In the third series of circumstances, claimant was charged with being absent without authority on August 3, December 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23, 1982. Uith respect to this matter, a hearing was held on January 27, 1983, and claimant did not appear at the hearing. He was found guilty of the charges and dismissed.

PLB- 2439 - 3 - AWD /#71

    Carrier asserts that its conclusions with respect to the measure of discipline accorded claimant in the three cases was eminently reasonable. He was cledrly guilty on all three occasions of the charges. In addition, his past record, prior to these incidents, was atrocious'and was introduced into the record. Under all the circumstances, Carrier concludes that it was correct in its ul-

    timate decision to terminate claimant following the previous infractions. -


    The urganization argues initially that Carrier's various modes of discipline in these three cases were arbitrary and excessive based on the entire record. Furthermore, the Organization maintains that because of claimant's absence at

    two of the hearings, obviously, charges were never contested appropriately -_

    and both hearings should have been postponed. Particularly with respect to

    the last investigative hearing, the Organization notes that that hearing took

    place during the period of time that claimant was already on suspension. -

    Furthermore, the Organization notes that claimant had a number of personal

    problems which, in part at least, accounted for some of his absences.


    After a thorough review of the transcript: of the investigations in all three =

    of the incidents included in this claim, the Board is of the opinion that

    there was substantial evidence to support Carrier's conclusion of claimant's

    gu,lt. On its face, the three levels of discipline accorded claimant for the

    infractions involved indicated a progressive and hoperully curative type of

    discipline. It is apparent that claimant, basea on his earlier record, much

    less the three infractions involved herein, learned little from his past expe

    rience and discipline. Under the circumstances, Carrier was eminently Justi

    fied in its decision to terminate claimant due to his serious infractions and

    apparent lack of interest-in his position. The award must tie denied.


    AWARD


          Claim denie~.


                  I. M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairiiian


    C. L.0Scher ing, Ca ier Member `- C. F. Foose, Cmployee Member


    San Francisco, CA

    March Z7, 1004