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.
Following a hearing held on December 16, 1994, the Carrier dismissed Claimant, a Welder, from service for being absent without property authority on November 21, 1994. The Carrier discharged Claimant because this was his third unauthorized absence during the last 36 months.
At the hearing, Claimant admitted that he did not report to duty on November 21, 1994. Claimant also conceded that he did not call the Carrier to mark off absent prior to the start of his 6:30 a.m. shift. The Manager of Track Maintenance testified that Claimant called at 9:00 a.m. on November 21, to state that he had to take care of some personal business with his attorney. At the hearing, Claimant confirmed that he had a court session scheduled for 8:30 a.m.
Based on Claimant's frank admission, the record contains substantial evidence that he did not have authority to be absent from work on November 21, 1994. Perhaps, if Claimant had called the prior evening or before 6:30 a.m. on November 21, the Carrier might have given him permission to take care of his personal business. By both not showing up for work and by failing to call before the start of his shift, Claimant demonstrated that he is not a dependable employee.
Although the record shows that Claimant has had some difficulty with unauthorized absences during the last 12 months, he has been a good employee and developed into an excellent Welder during his many years of service since 1978. Based on his accumulated service record, the Board will mitigate the dismissal herein to a suspension measured by the time Claimant has been out of
Public Law Board No. 3241 Page 2