t A.
PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3271
Award No. i
Case No. 1
Docket No. 700-104
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
to and _..
Dispute Galveston Wharves
Statement
of Claim: Claus of Mr. Thomas W. Stan for reinstatement to service with the
Carrier and pay for all time lost with all rights unimpaired.
Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all 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 September 14, 1982, that it has jurisdiction of the parties
and the subject matter, and that the parties erere given due notice of the
hearing held.
Claimant, an auto mechanic, who first entered Carrier's employment as a
Laborer on May 3, 1965, was in Carrier's Construction and Maintenance
Department since June 19, 1973.
He was notified, on July 6, 1981, to attend a formal investigation on the
charge:
" ..that you were absent from your workplace
without pemission on two separate occasions, on
Wednesday, July 1, 1981 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
and again on Thursday, July 2, 1981 at.8:00 a.m."
Following the investigation concluded July 13, 1981, at which Claimant was
represented by his personal attorney, Claimant was advised that:
"...you are guilty of the charges made against you.
We have taken into consideration that you have
been disciplined before on January 3, 1979 for
being absent without permission and again on
January 30, 1981 for sleeping on the job. It
is my decision that your employment is teminated
as of this date July 20, 1981."
This Board's function has authoritatively been deemed to be that of an
appellate body which determines from the record presented it whether an
- Award No. 1
employee who has been disciplined by his employer had received the due process
to which entitled under the discipline rule applicable to his craft or class,
whether there had been a sufficiency
of
evidence adduced to properly support
the conclusions reached by Carrier and
if so
whether the degree
of
discipline
assessed the employee viewed in the light of the offense and Claimant's
service record was unreasonable.
The Board finds that Claimant was accorded the due process to which
entitled under Article 11 - Discipline and Grievances. He was properly
charged, represented by his own attorney, faced his accusers, had witnesses
and exercised his right of appeal. Claimant's representative agreed that the
hearing had been conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
There was sufficient evidence adduced, including the admissions against
interest by Claimant, to support Carrier's conclusions as to Claimant's guilt
on the charge of absence without permission July 1 and 2, 1981.
The Board finds circumstances which serve to mitigate the discipline
assessed. Claimant will be conditionally reinstated to service.as a laborer
with all rights otherwise unimpaired but without pay subject to the
following: Claimant must first pass the necessary and appropriate return to
service medical examinations; thereafter Claimant is to meet with his and
Carrier's local representatives to review, to discuss and to understand his
problem and, in particular, his wandering about or leaving the property
without permission, as well as his obligation to his employer; and to further
understand that he is being placed in a probationary status for a one year
period and that if Claimant should violate such status it alone, if proven,
will provide basisfor dismissal. Probationary status does not eliminate
Claimant's rights under Article 11. It will thereafter be up to Claimant to
demonstrate that he desires to continue to work for Carrier.
Award: Claim disposed of as per findings.
Order: Carrier is directed to make this Award effective within
thirty (30? days of date of issuance shown below.
Chrlstle, mp oyee Mert. er a ig, a er Member
z /~z .~y~1. ~'-
Arthur an art; Chaim. an
and Neutral Member
Issued January 4, T983.