BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 4633
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD COMPANY
Case No. 1
Dispute: Claim of the Brotherhood:
(1) The dismissal of Trackman Robert Gillispie was without just
and sufficient cause, based on unproven charges.
(2) Claimant Gillispie shall be reinstated to service without
loss of compensation, seniority rights, vacation, all other
benefits and privileges he enjoyed prior to'his dismissal.
Findings:
Claimant Robert Gillispie was a trackman employed by the Carrier
at Hammond, Indiana. On December 8, 1986, Claimant was charged and
notified to report for an investigation:'
to determine the facts and your responsibility, if any, in
connection with your failure to report for duty from October
17, 1986, to present date and for your failure to respond to
to instructions given by your superior officer on November 21,
1986.
The investigation was held on January 7, 1987, and as a result,
Claimant was dismissed from service. The Organization thereafter
filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his dismissal.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding that the Claimant was guilty of being absent from his job
without the authority of his supervisors from October 17,.1986,
through the date of the Carrier's investigation on January 7, 1987.
The record is clear that although the Carrier sent letters to the
Claimant, he never responded to any of them personally, but had some
other person make a request for a leave of absence. .The Claimant did
. . p~,a
-y033-~
not appear as instructed on more than one occasion, therefore was
clearly in violation of the Carrier's rules. There is no documented
reason for his prolonged absence. Consequently, he was in violation
of Rule T and the Carrier's policy on absences.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our
attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set
aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
Although the Claimant had twelve years of service with the
Carrier, it is clear that his wrongdoing in this case was so serious
as to be sufficient basis for the Carrier to terminate his employment..
This Board finds that the action taken by the Carrier was not
unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the claim must be
denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Neutral Mem er
Carr er Me r Organ zat on !
Me Date:
7 27 ~o
2