Public Law Board No. 4161
Parties to Dispute
Brotherhood of Maintenance of )
Way Employees ) Case No. 39
vs ) Award No. 28
)
Burlington Northern Railroad )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The five i5) days of suspension imposed upon
Sectionman G. L. Westberg for alleged violation
of Rule 502 was unwarranted and in violation of
the Agreement.
2. The Claimant's record shall be cleared of the
charge leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered, including
overtime, holiday pay and any expenses which may
be applicable.
FINDINGS
The Claimant was advised to attend an investigation to
determine facts and place responsibility, if any, in connection
with his alleged absence without authority on five different days
in the latter part of 1983. After the investigation was held
the Claimant was advised that he had been found quilty as charged
and he was given as suspension as outlined in the above Statement of Claim. This discipline was appealed by the Organization
in the normal manner on property. Absent resolution of the dispute concerning the propriety of the discipline this case was
docketed before this Public Law Board for final adjudication.
The Rule at bar is the following:
i
e
-2-
Public Law Board No. 4161 (Award No. 28; Case No. 39)
Rule 502
Employees must report for duty at the designated time
and place. They must be alert, attentive and devote themselves exclusively to the Company's service while on duty.
They must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties
with or substitute others in their place without proper
authority.
The record shows that the Claimant testified first of all that
he attempted unsuccessfully to contact Carrier's supervision with
respect to his days' off. The Board must note, however, that the
Rule in question has requirements thatgo beyond such attempts. On
the basis of these requirements the Board cannot reasonably accept
reasoning provided by the Claimant as sufficient grounds to sustain
his claim as this relates to attempts at notification of Carrier's
officers. Secondly, the Claimant argues that his absence at work
on the days in question was due to defects in the public transportation system. Albeit this reasoning applies only to "troubles"
which the Claimant had "with bus connections", he would not venture-the conclusion, however, that this was the case on all the days in
question but that such impediments to his being at work applied
only "on a couple of (the) days, (he) guessed)". The claim also
cannot be sustained on basis of this latter reason proffered by
the Claimant. On the record as a whole the Board must conclude
that the claim be denied.
AW D
The claim is denied.
ward L. Suntrup, Neutral Member
ax ne M. T' berman, Carrier Member
B re G. Glover, Employee Member
Date: