PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 2444
Award No. 21
Case No. 30
Docket No. MW-79-50
Parties
Brotherhood of
Maintenance of 'clay Employees
to and
Dispute Southern Pacific Transportation Company
(Texas and Louisiana Lines)
Statement
of Claim: Carrier violated the effective Agreement when Laborer
George Cartwright was unjustly dismissed by letter dated
December 28, 1978.
Claimant George Cartwright shall be reinstated to his former
position with pay for all time lost, vacation, seniority
and all other rights unimpaired.
Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and 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 July 19, 1979, that it has jurisdiction of the parties
and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of
the hearing held.
Claimant was advised, under date of December 28, 1978, by his
Division Engineer:
"You were absent from your duty job assignment with
out proper authority on December 22, and 26,
1978 which is in violation of Rule M810 of the
General Rules and
Regulations of
the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company, as posted by
General Notice, effective April 1, 1978, which
reads in part as follows:
Rule M810:
'Employees must report for duty at the prescribed
time and place.:.. They must not absent themselves
from their employment without proper authority ....
Continued failure by employees to protect their
employment shall be sufficient cause for dismissal...'
For your violation of Rule M810, you are dismissed
from the service of the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company..."
~1
-2- Award No. 21 - ,-2
I/V
`t
Claimant requested and was granted a fair and impartial hearing as
provided by Article 14 - Investigation Discipline. As a result of the
investigation, Claimant was advised that:
"Facts adduced at your hearing on January 30, 1979,
show that you are guilty of being absent without
authority on December 22 and 26, 1978 in violation
of Rule M810 as charged: Therefore your dismissal
will stand."
Rule M810 reads as follows:
"Employees must report for duty at the prescribed
time and place, remain at their post of duty, and
devote themselves exclusively to their duties
during their tour of duty. They must not absent
themselves from their employment without proper
authority ....
Continued failure by employees to protect their
employment shall be sufficient cause for dismissal.
An employee subject to call for duty must not
leave his usual calling place without notice to
those required to call him ...."
Claimant admitted to being absent on the two days in question. He
likewise admitted that he had not obtained permission to be off on those
two days. Such admissions are tantamount to a plea of guilty which
leaves only the question of discipline.
The medical evidence introduced by the Employees concerning Claimant
was neither timely relevant or probative. It reflected that Claimant was
seen in a clinic of the University of Texas, Health Science Center, at
Houston Medical, on December 29, 1978 and that he was taken into such
Center on January 3 and 4, 1979 to be seen by another doctor on
January 4, 1979. This date in the evidence is not supportive of the
alleged illness that Claimant suffered. As to its materiality, it was
not introduced at the investigation but was given to the Board.
In the circumstances, we find the discipline was reasonable.
Claimant's record reflects that Claimant had been dismissed on July 14, 1975_
for violation of Rule 810. He was later reinstated and he was again
dismissed on November 22, 1977 for also violating Rule 810, Rule M and
Rule 801. In the circumstances, this claim will be denied.
Award: Claim denied.
Award No. 21
- a
14. .4. -rChristie, Employee Member
C. B. Goyne, rrier Member
Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman
and Neutral Member
Issued at Falmouth, Massachusetts, August 1 5, 1980.