NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
PUBLIC-LAW BOARD N0: 4370
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
AWARD NO. 17
Case No. 17
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(1) The Carrier violated the provisions ofthe
current Agreement when it removed Mr. J. E. Jackson
from the service of the Fort Worth and Denver
Railway Company effective January 14, 1988.
(2) The Carrier further violated said Agreement
when it removed Claimant J. E. Jackson from the
service of the Joint Texas Division on January 15,
1988, said action being arbitrary, capricious and
in violation of the Agreement.
(3) The Carrier will now be required to reinstate Claimant's seniority on both Railroads
(seniority districts) as-wellas all benefits and
compensation for all wage loss suffered.
F I-N D I N G S
By letter dated December 21, 1987, the Claimant was notified to appear at an investigative hearing on December 29, 1987
to determine his responsibility concerning his "alleged absence
from duty without proper authority from December 7, 1987 through
PLB No. 4370
Award No. 17
Page 2
December 16-, 1987". The Claimant acknowledged receipt of the
letter on December 22, 1987, but he did not appear at the hear- -
ing.
According to the Timekeeper who testified at the hearing,
the Claimant advised her on Friday, December 4 that he was =
"leaving early" and that he had "okayed" his early departure -
with the Roadmaster. -
There is no record of the Claimant reporting for work commencing December 7 or advising of his reason for absence.
By letter dated January 14, 1988, the Claimant was notified that he was dismissed from service.
At the time of the investigation, the Claimant held seniority on two districts ----the Ft. Worth and Denver Seniority District,where he was working, and the Texas Division Seniority District.
By letter dated Decem.ber 14, 1987 (during his absence giving.
rise to the investigation), the Claimant was notified that he
was recalled to the Joint Texas Division-as of January 4, 1988.
The Organization argued, during the claims handling process,
that the Claimant had simply given up his seniority on the Ft.
Worth and Denver Seniority District in favor of his seniority
on the Texas Division, and thus should not be denied the,
opportunity to exercise his seniority on the Texas Division.-
PLB No. 4370_
Award
No. 17
Page 3
While separate working agreements apply for the Carrier's
various divisions (formerly separate railroads), many rules are
enforced in common throughout the Carrier's system. This includes
the standard Rule
570
which reads as follows:
570.
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 substitue others in-their place without proper
authority.
Since the
hearing,
December
no proof
seniority
The fact
tunity o
gravity
Claimant failed to appear for the investigative
notice, the basis for his absence from
December 16 remains speculative. There is
after due
7 through
for the contention that the Claimant"gave up" his
on the Ft. Worth and Texas Division on December
4.
that he was
n a different
of his failure
The Carrier is-on
to report
firm g
to take disciplinary action as to
ship with the Carrier,
was working (and,
he
The
for
based ona
incidentally
Claimant placed himself at risk
he hearing or
risk
subsequently notified of employment oppor-
t seniority roster does not diminish the
or to
round in determining its right
the Claimant's overall relationrule in effect at the point
in other divisions as well).
by not appearing as scheduled
to provide reasonable-explanation for such
explain his absence.
PLB No. 4370
Award No. 17
Page 4
failure. The Carrier correctly viewed this extended unexcused
absence of- the same gravity as if there had been no coincidental
recall to another division-
A W A R D
Claim denied.
HERBERT L. MARX, JR., Referee
DATED: September Z9,-19$9 ___
___
_--
NEW YORK, N.Y.