Parties
to the
Dispute
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3765
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
OF
WAY EMPLOYEES
VS.
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD
COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAD
Request that Mr. Szymczak be returned
to service with time already served to
apply as discipline.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Case No. 49
Robert G. Szymczak, the Claimant, was at the time of
the incident that gave rise to this claim employed as a
First Class Carpenter at Battle Creek, Michigan. On July 2,
1990, Claimant was sentenced to the Sheawassie County Jail
for 76 days. He was arrested and jailed for operating a
motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Claimant used his vacation time to cover him from July
2, 1990, through July 8, 1990. He was officially absent
from work on July 9, 1990. He remained off from work during
vw'_ Yg
2
the period of his incarceration. He served a total of 64
days in jail, with time off for good behavior.
on July 26, 1990, carrier notified Claimant that he was
being charged with excessive absenteeism. He was ordered to
appear for an investigation into the matter. The notifi
cation reads in pertinent part as follows:
This formal investigation is being held to
determine your responsibility, if any, for
alleged excessive absenteeism and failure
to protect your job assignment on the following dates:
July 9, 1990 8 hours
July 10,
1990 8 hours
July 11, 1990 8 hours
July 12,
1990 8 hours
July 13,
1990 8 hours
July
16, 1990 8 hours
July 17,
1990 8 hours
July
18, 1990 8 hours
July 19, 1990 8 hours
July
20, 1990 8 hours
July 23,
1990 8 hours
July 24,
1990 8 hours
July 25,
1990 8 hours
July 26,
1990 8 hours
July 27,
1990 8 hours
The investigation was eventually held on September
6,
1990. As a result of that hearing, Claimant was found
guilty of excessive absenteeism and failure to protect his
assignment on the dates specified in the Letter of Charges.
Claimant was assessed a penalty of dismissal.
3~ ~s-c.~q
3
This Board has reviewed the record, together with the
transcript. Based on that review, we find no grounds to
overturn Carrier's action in this instance. Claimant has
had considerable problems in the past with absenteeism and
the use of alcohol. He has been in Carrier's EAP Program on
at least two occasions, but he has failed to solve his
problem with alcohol.
on numerous occasions, this Board has granted employes
a last chance when they warranted it to solve their drug or
alcohol problems and become worthwhile employes. We are not
convinced, however, that Claimant has demonstrated that he
seriously intends to solve his problem with alcohol. Based
on his long years of service, however, the Board does not
want to completely close out Claimant's chance to return to
work for carrier. The Board will therefore uphold his dismissal, but hold it in abeyance for one year. If Claimant
enrolls in Carrier's EAP Program and participates to Carrier's satisfaction, and also enrolls in Alcoholics Anonymous and becomes a serious participant, he can then apply to
Carrier for leniency reinstatement. It will be solely up to
Carrier whether Claimant is returned to work. If, after one
,7 (dS- LI G
4
year, Carrier decides that Claimant shall not be reinstated,
his removal shall become effective.
AWARD
The claim is denied with the conditions set forth above.
I E.Denn~is. Neutral Member
J.A. DeROChe, K.R. a n,
Carrier Member Employ ember
Date of Adoption