BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 4633
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
INDIANA
HARBOR BELT
RAILROAD COMPANY
Case No. 8
Dispute: Claim of the Brotherhood:
The dismissal of Track Laborer Littleton Jackson, Jr. on
August 13, 1987, as the result of the investigation of
August 11, 1987, be stricken from his record and that he be
reinstated to service and compensated for all monetary
losses.
Findings:
Claimant L. Jackson, Jr. was employed as a trackman by the
Carrier. On July 13, 1987, Claimant was directed to attend an
investigation:
to determine the facts and your responsibility, if any, in
connection with excessive absenteeism which is indicated by
your failure to perform service on 33 days or 100% of the time
during the period of May 26, 1987, through July 11, 1987.
The investigation took place on August 11, 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 the Rule T violation for
being absent from work for 33 days during the period May 26, 1987,
through July 11, 1987. That absenteeism record was atrocious and the
Carrier was well within its right to impose discipline.
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
_ pA.D _ y&3
.3
-a
aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
The record in this case reveals that the Claimant was previously
issued a 10 day deferred suspension in an effort to motivate him to
improve his attendance. However, that discipline did not have any
effect and he continued to neglect his obligation as an employee with
respect to reporting on time and completing his tour of duty.
Therefore, this Board cannot find that the action taken by the Carrier
was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Y
leutral Me e
J
% f~/'~/~
l _et~
Carrier M er Organization ex
Date:
2