Case
No.
22
PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 4823
PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO ) versus
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Carrier's decision to remove Texas
Division Trackman J. R. Watson from service was unjust.
2. That the Carrier now reinstate Claimant Watson with
seniority, vacation, all benefit rights unimpaired and pay
for all wage loss as a result of investigation held August
9, 1990, continuing forward and/or otherwise made whole
because the Carrier did not introduce substantial,
creditable (sic.) evidence that proved that the Claimant
violated the rules enumerated in their decision, and even if
Claimant violaated the rules enumerated in the decision,
permanent removal from service is extreme and harsh
discipline under the circumstances."
FINDINGS:
This Public Law Board No. 4823 finds that the parties
herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has
jurisdiction.
On July 25, 1990, Carrier's Division Manager wrote the,
claimant, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Arrange to report to Assistanat Superintendent's
Office, Temple, Texas, at 9:00 AM, August 9, 1990,
with your representative and witness(es) if
desired, for formal investigation to develop the
facts and place your responsibility, if any, in
connection with possible violation of Rules B and
1004, Safety and General Rules for all Employees,
concerning your allegedly being absent from duty
without proper authority on July 13, 16, 17, 19,
20, 23 and 24, 1990."
The investigation was held as scheduled, following
which Carrier found the claimant responsible for violation
~'~e;-'183
Case No. 22 Page 2 AWARD NO. 22
of the rules cited and immediately discharged him from
service for his responsibility in connection therewith.
Claimant's representative at the investigation filed
the following dissent to Carrier's decision:
"I decent (sic.) the decision of the Investigating
Committee to remove Mr. Watson from service at the
conclusion of
the investigation rather than being
based on the written transcript. The Organization
believes
terminating Mr
.
Watson as
discipline
was
extremely excessive for the rules sited (sic.)."
An
objective perusal of the testimony developed at the
investigation reveals that the claimant understood the rules
cited and readily admitted to having violated them. -His
reason for having been absent from duty without authority on
the dates in question was very vague. On Page 9 of the
transcript the claimant testified as follows to questions by
his representative at the
investigation: _
"Q. Mr. Watson, is there any particular reason why
you were absent on these days?
A. Personal problems.
Q. Nothing that
concerns the
railroad at this
time, is that correct?
A. Not anything that I am able to go into at this
time."
From the testimony of record, including that quoted
above, there is no basis for concluding that any mitigating
circumstances existed which waxxant either setting aside or
reducing the discipline assessed. Further, in view of the
fact that there were no conflicts in testimony or disputes
in fact(s) to resolve, and no mitigating circumstances to
consider and/or evaluate, it was not improper for the
Carrier to render it's decision immediately following the
investigation.
As
concerns the
Employees' position that permanent
removal from service is extreme and harsh discipline under
the circumstances, the Boards notes that the claimant has an
extremely poor discipline record. He had been assessed
demerits on 12 previous occasions (totaling 220), most of
which involved absence from duty without authority, as well
as having been previously discharged (for
threatening
another employee and
withholding information
concerning
same) and suspended fox being absent from duty without
authority. The various divisons of the National Railroad
Adjustment Board, Special Boards of Adjustment and Public
e'
~,l Cj ~ ~`~ `3
v°L 3-
Case No.-22 Page 3 AWARD NO. 22
Law Boards have consistently held that Carriers have a right
to expect their employees to report for duty as assigned and
absence from duty without authority is a serious violation
of the rules. Additionally, said tribunals have
consistently held that a Carrier may consider an employee's
past record in determining the measure of discipline to be
assessed for a rule violation.
For all the reasons set forth above, the Board finds
that the claimant was properly found responsible for
violation of the rules cited and. In view of the serious.
nature of the violation and the claimant's extremely poor
discipline record, his removal from service for his
responsibility in connection therewith was entirely
appropriate. --
AWARD: Claim denied.
G. Mich el Garmon,vChairman
Employee Member
Carrier Member
Dated at Chicago, IL: