Public Law Board No. 4161
Parties to Dispute
Brotherhood of Maintenance of )
Way Employees )
) Case No, 5
vs )
Award No. 5
Burlington Northern Railroad )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. The dismissal of Section Laborer D. W. Jablinske
for alleged violation of Rule 702 of the Burlington
Northern Railroad Company was unwarranted and without
just and sufficient cause.
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and
all other benefits unimpaired, his record cleared of
the charge leveled against him and he shall be com
pensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS
On August 25, 1981 the Claimant was advised to attend an
investigation to determine facts and place responsibility, if any,
in connection with his alleged failure to report for duty as
laborer for the section on which he was assigned at 6:30 AM on
August 24, 1981 at Miles City, Montana. After the hearing was
held as scheduled on August 31, 1981 the Claimant was advised that
he had been found guilty as charged and he was discharged from
service. He was discharged on September 25, 1981.
The Rule at bar which the Claimant allegedly violated is the
following one.
Rule 702: Employees must report for duty at the designated
time and place. They must be alert, attentive and -
devote themselves exclusively to the company's
_2_
Public Law Board No. 4161 (Award No. 5; Case No. 5)
service while on duty. They must not absent
themselves from duty, exchangeduties with or
substitute others in their place without proper
authority.
This discipline was appealed by the organization on property up to
and including the highest Carrier officer designated to hear such
before this case was docketed before this Public Law Board for final
adjudication.
The record shows that the Carrier's witness, the Assistant
Roadmaster, testified that the Claimant was not present to cover
his assignment on the day and hour in question, and this is
corraborated by the testimony of the Claimant himself. According
to testimony of the Claimant he was also familiar with the Rule in
question. He further volunteered that the reason he did not cover -
his assignment was because he "...woke up late" on the day in question.
The reason he woke up late was because his alarm clock did not go off.
Although the Claimant stated in hearing that he attempted to
call the Roadmaster's office and report in after he woke up there is
sufficient evidence of probative value in the record to support the
charge. Arbitral precedent in the railroad industry establishes that
oversleeping is an unacceptable reason for missing one's assignment
(Second Division 4165, 6710; Fourth Division 2598 inter alia). The
claim cannot, therefore, on the basis of evidence and on merits be
sustained.
The only issue to be addressed by this Board, therefore, is if
the quantum of disipline was arbitrary and/or capricious. A review of
the Claimant's personal record shows a pattern of Rule 702 violations
prior to the instant discipline. Such violations led to prior dis~ -
ciplines in July of 1979, August of 1980,and January and August of
1981. Such record warrants the conclusion, as arbitral precedent
establishes (Third Division 21043, 22320, 23508), that the quantum
of discipline here at bar should not be disturbed. Assessement of
discharge in the instant case was a reasonable and just application
-3-
Public Law Board No. 4161 (Award No. 5; Case No. 5)
of the principle of progressive discipline.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ward
L. Suntrup, Neutral Member
~ B i - ` ott r arrier-.V[er9Zer
i
Karl P. Employee -Member
Date.
t.
^;·.m,i
2114?. 7