?=RTTEES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 =O and
 J=3PU= Union Pacific Railroad -
 3-2nT :~FNT The 60-day suspension assessed Laborer C L.
 .,_ 3:~A=Y Amos for alleged violation of various company
 rules as indicated in Mr. b, C. Jones' letter
 of October 1, 1990-is arbitrary, capricious
 and unwarranted.
 Provided the sustaining of charges was -
 correct, which it was not, the discipline
 assessed was excessive.
 The claimant's record shall be cleared of the
 discipline referred to in Part (1) and he
 shall be compensated for all time lost.





                                              -P~Y-7-


day it appeared the Gang would be released from work at the normal quitting time. However, as the end of the shift approached, the workers were told they would have to work overtime. This was not unusual.
 Near the time the Assistant Foreman returned to the Gang to announce they would have to stay and work overtime, the Claimant had begun walking toward his car. He said he was tired and had no desire to wait around. It is not clear whether the Claimant was leaving in response to the notice that the Gang would have to work overtime or whether he had predetermined he was going-to
                                                      -

leave at the normal quitting time. Regardless, he walked up the
 road toward Motanic, Oregon. A half-mile from the work site, he
 was picked up by the Foreman, Mr. D. C. Peterson: According to
 the Foreman's testimony, the Claimant indicated he was heading
 for his car which was parked at Kamela, Oregon because he didn't
 want to work overtime and he had things he needed to be doing at -
 home. The Grievant denies rt;aking those statements and insists
 he was attempting to locate someone with authority so he could
 be releaased for the day. At any rate, once the Foreman picked
 him up, he was taken to the Track Supervisor, Mr. S. J. White.
 Mr. White discussed with him the seriousness of leaving work
 without seeking permission. The Claimant allegedly recognized
 the significance of what he had done and expressed his
 understanding of the matter to the Supervisor. Mr. White told
 the Claimant he was in violation of Rule 48(1) afterwhich the -
 Claimant returned to the work cite with the Foreman and rejoined
 the Gang which was finishing up their work.
                                                4-1 (4

                                                    ~- -


The Claimant worked the following two work days, Monday and Tuesday, August 13 and 14. At some point on August 14, Mr. White advised the.Claimant that he was being removed from service for leaving work without permission on August 10, 1990. Following this incident, the Union, on behalf of Mr. Amos,requested an investigation. on September 5, 1990, the Claimant received the following notice of investigation:

        '. September 5, 1990

        NOTICE OF FORMAL INVESTIGATION


    Mr. C. L. Amos SSN: 540-34-4463 Rt. 4 Box 4131 A Herminston, (sic) Oregon 97838


    Dear Sir:


    At approximately 6:00 p.m. on August 10, 1990, -

    you allegedly walked off from the job while -

    working at Motanic, Oregon indicating a -

    possible violation of Rule 481L) of the

    Agreement between the Union Pacific Railroad

    and the BMWE.


    You are therefore ordered to appear for hearing to determine your responsibility in this incident. This hearing has been scheduled for 8:00 A.M. on Tuesday, September11; 1990 in the Union Pacific Depot, 1150 Jefferson Street at LaGrande, Oregon.


    · The hearing will be conducted in conformity with Rule 48 of the Agreement between the

    Company and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of -

    Way Employes and you are entitled to

    representation as provided in that rule.


    You may provide such witnesses as you desire

    at your own expense. -

    · Sincerely,

    B. A. "oser -

                    Maintenance ;;n'ineer - Trac'.c

                    3

                                              Lt-) 47- co


As a result of evidence produced at hearing, the Carrier believed the Claimant had attempted to absent himself without authority on August 10, 1990. He was suspended for a period of - sixty (60) days.
 The only other disciplinary action-which appears on the Claimant's record is a thirty (30) day suspension which occurred-March 3, 1989. Other than that the Claimant appears to have a clean employment record during his total tenure with the Carrier.
 There is little doubt that the Claimant had intended -to walk off- the job at the end of his normal shift on the day in question. He headed toward his car and indicated his intention to go home to the Foreman who picked him up along the road and subsequently to the Supervisor who interviewed him. However, it - is also obvious the Claimant gave little thought to the seriousness of his actions. He, like the other members of his gang, had put in a great many overtime hours. It had been a hotday, and according to the Claimant, his wife was not happy with the number of hours he was away from home. It is apparent this put pressure on the Employe. Once he was cautioned about his behavior, he willingly returned to the work site and following his weekend off, he came to work the next two work days. At no time was he recalcitrant. It hardly seems necessary to have suspended him for such a lengthy period of time. Surely a less intensive penalty would have served to modify the Claimant's behavior, especially, since there is no evidence he was guilty of ignoring a direct.order.- Besides, the Carrier eras especially -

                            4

                                                L4 -7 Ll I AP


slow in assessing the penalty. The Supervisor failed to even mention the matter was pending further investigation. If, as the Supervisor testified, the practice had been to suspend employes who committed the identical rule infraction, the Supervisor should have advised the Claimant of at least this possibility on the day of the incident. At any rate, the Carrier had two days over the weekend todetermine the appropriate discipline, but failed to take action until the following Tuesday. In the meantime, the Claimant worked two additional work days before he was told he was being suspended.

      While walking off the job without proper authority is a -

serious infraction, the premise of progressive discipline
 dictates that a lesser penalty be issued for a first such
 offense. As mentioned above, this is especially true
 considering the fact the Claimant made no-attempt to disobey his -
 Supervisors once told to return to work. The Neutral also `°
 considers the circumstances surrounding the situation on the day
 in question to be a mitigating factor.

                          AWARD


The Impartial Arbitrator has taken into account not only the Employe's employment record, but the manner in which the Claimant was issued the discipline, as well as, the concept of progressive discipline and has determined the penalty issued the Claimant to be too severe; the Sixty (60) day suspension is to be reduced to a ten (10) day suspension. The Claimant is to be reimbursed for any loss of wages or benefits in excess of this amount.

                            5

`f-1 z-I-1- b

                            Carol / amperin3

                            Impar ial neutral


Submitted:

 February 23, 1990 Denver, Colorado

 6