PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 2774
Award No. 154
Cone No. 151
I
Al-.J
TF.S BBrothorhood or Maintenance at Way E_mploves
nn
n15rU-rt-;
__ ._ __ _ "nd
lltchison, Topeka
r.
Santa Fe Railway Company
STATFt'IC=_N_l' ".1. That the dismissal. of truck driver Ambrose -
(1F._
CI,:11lB--
Smith can March 28, 1 9035, wam
in
violation
oi thr Aqrnpmnnt and based on unproven charqoB,
said action being arbitrary, and an abuse of
discretion.
C. The Carrier will now be required Lo reinstAtt
Claimant to his former position gas truck; driver -
with seniority N,nd all other right, s restored,
unimpaired, and componnatod for all waqe losn -
FINDUNrs:
Upon the whole record, aitar hearing, the board T.inds that the .
pnrtxen herein are Carrier and f-Employees within the meaning or
the Railway Labor Act, as amended, arid that this Board is duly
constituted- under Public Low 89--456 and has jurisdiction
of
the -
p«rtwo _nd the subject mattar.
The Claimant was charged with being absent without authority on -
February 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and Sth 1985. by letter dated
f:r,ru,-,r·. £a, 1985, Carrier notified Claimant that he was -
forminated in accordance with the L_wtter of Underntandinq dated
__
Joly
1'3, .19?h (Appendix numbwr 11). The Claimant requested Lin -
tnvertination by letter dated February 14, arid the invn=Lig.rion -
'~1-»
y - sy
,I..,·.,:
irrlci nn Harr hi 1,'_-, 14;,.75. Th,,r'Claimant did not aLtond tire
:"aria-nrt. £iubsoquontjy he.·
WAS
advised that Carrier decided l.c_
continue to hold him out of service and. he was terminated.
L'ho record of this dispute is clear. Claimant had been
disciplined on
five
prior occasions, including one dismissal. for
being absent without authoriLy.
At
the time of his dismissal he
had
53
demerits outstLandinq on his record. While Claimant
insisted that he did not attend the henring because- it was too
tar away from his normal place
of
work-or residence, he made no
r-e~quf?=,t to eiLher pootpone the hearing or change: its location;
-nor did his Union representative. Under the circumstances, it
IS
the Board's view that the hearing was conducted appropriately and
the decision with respect to Claimant's discipline-was correct.
The Carrier cannot tolerate continued and habitual absenteeism
.end this eras the rationale for the original development: of the
ketter ;:if Understandinn in 1.976. No employer need condone o·-.
,C:cept habitu*.1 anti continued absenteeism without propor
authority.
In this-. Case there
was
no contOLt
m4do
with Carrier, much lu-.c>
.~nv e:;c use tendered for tht, continucad
ab
sonr_e. The Claim (nuat he
denied.
(AWARD
Claim denied.
g;ZAI.M. mployle.ieberman, fdeutral Mamber~-~-! -
Memberarmon, Carrier Member-
(''1ri,caqcr, Illinois
/ , 1988