This Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended; that this Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the dispute herein; that this Board is duly constituted by an Agreement dated July 23, 1982; and that all parties were given due notice of the hearing held on this matter.
In a notice dated March 1, 1993, the Carrier charged Claimant, an Equipment Operator on Gang 7432, with allegedly committing two separate offenses: 1) absenting himself from his assigned duties on February 8, 1993; and, 2) falsely listing 10 hours of straight time pay on the time roll for February 8, 1993.
Subsequent to the investigation held on March 8, 1993, the Carrier suspended Claimant from service for 30 days for being absent without proper authority. Since it did not discipline Claimant for falsifying the time roll, the Carrier implicitly exonerated him of the second charged offense.
At the onset, the Organization argues that the March 1, 1993 notice of charges was deficient. Because the Carrier disciplined Claimant for an offense which did not appear in the March 1, 1993 notice. The Organization submits that the Carrier charged Claimant with being absent from his assigned duties but it disciplined him for being absent without proper authority.
The Board finds that these are one and the same offense. The words "absenting yourself' mean that Claimant made himself absent without permission. The word "yourself' signifies that Claimant was acting under his own authority which impliedly means he was acting without the authority of his supervisors. Therefore, the notice sufficiently apprised Claimant that he was being charged with being absent without proper authority on February 8, 1993.
At the March 8, 1993 investigation, Claimant candidly admitted that he was absent on February 8, 1993 and that he failed to call the Carrier to mark off absent. Claimant did not offer
Public Law Board No. 3241 Page 2any excuse for his absence. Thus, the Carrier submitted substantial evidence proving that Claimant was absent without authority on February 8, 1993.
On the former Western Pacific, the Carrier implemented, apparently on an experimental basis, a new disciplinary policy called UPGRADE. While this Board will not relate all of the intricacies of the policy, UPGRADE is designed, among other objectives, to insure that discipline is consistently meted out for similar offenses across the property. In conjunction with consistent and equitable discipline, UPGRADE inherently instills the principle of progressive discipline in the levels of sanctions for various offenses listed in the policy.
In this case, Claimant was already at Level 3 when he committed the offense herein. The absent without authority offense is a Level 1 offense. The table of discipline penalties (which as we already ruled inherently incorporates progressive discipline) and UPGRADE policy mandates that when an employee at Level 3 commits a Level 1 offense, the employee is elevated to and given the penalty specified for Level 4.'
The Organization argues that 30 days is excessive and unduly harsh for simply being absent without permission on one work day. However, contrary to the Organization's arguments, the Carrier only disciplined Claimant one level which is the appropriate discipline for an absent without leave offense.' Because the principle of progressive discipline is instilled in UPGRADE, Claimant actually had to serve a 30 day suspension because the Level 1 offense elevated him