Parties
to the
Dispute
· PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3542
Pennsylvania Federation Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employes
VS.
Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(a) That Dale B. Hahn, employed at Hazelton, Pennsylvania,
be restored to service with seniority rights and all other
privileges provided for by either agreement or past practice.
That he be compensated for all time lost until such tine he
is
or would be able to perform his usual function for the
carrier.
(b) That Dale B. Hahn's record be cleared of all charges
brought against his record.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Claimant D. B. Hahn is a Trackman i.n Carrier ',s_employ at
Hazeltown, Pennsylvania. Claimant was notified to appear at a hearing on September.30, 1981, in connection with the following:
Case No. 24
Award No. 7
Your responsibikity, if--any, in the violation
of General Rule T; paragaraph two, of the Conrail Rules for Conducting Transportation, which
reads as follows:
No employe will be allowed to
absent himself from duty without
proper authority nor will any
employe be-allowed to engage a
substitute to perform his duties.
Your failure to report for work on August 24, September 1,
2, 3, 4, 8, and 9, 1931, constitutes excessive absenteeism.
The hearing was held without Claimant in attendance. Claimant
was found guilty as charged, assessed 35 demerits, and subsequently
dismissed from Carrier's service. This '3oard has reviewed the record
of the case and concludes that despite Claimant's absence from the
hearing, it was held in a fair manner and that the facts brought
out at the hearing support a finding of guilty. The total record
of this case, however, does not support permanent dismissal of
Claimant from Carrier's employ.
The Board has stated in previous awards that employes are
required to appear at work on a regular basis and work a full day.
Even though that is the case, it is the Board's opinion that Carrier
may have hurried up the pro;rassive discivline procedures to the
point that Claimant was prematurely dismiss-4. H Lon; suspension
1:1a y
have been more appropriate in this case.
Carrier can mike its point with Claimant an·:-other employe-,
who will be aware of this decision by reinstatinZ Claim9nt with
1o
back pay but with seniority intact. It should also he rade '-:mown
PLB No. 3542
Case No. 24
Award No. 7
to Claimant that this reinstatement is on
a
last-chancebasis. He
will be expected to appear at work on time on a regular basis, work
a full shift, and follow the directions of his Supervisors. Any
deviation from this pattern of behavior without proper justification
will most certainly result in charges and Claimant's ultimate dismissal
from his job.
Dodd, Employe Member
A14ARD
Carrier is directed to reinstate Claimant
per opinion of the Board to his former
position within 30 days of the adoption
by the Board of this award.
°. Dennis, Neutral Member
O'Neil, Carrier Member