NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4979
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
AWARD NO. 47
System Docket No. BMWE-322D
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(1) Carrier's dismissal of Claimant Amancio Pires
was without just and sufficient cause, was not based on
any clear and probative evidence and was done in an
arbitrary and capricious manner, wholly beyond the Scope
of the Scheduled Agreement.
(2) Claimant Pires shall be reinstated into
carrier's service with all seniority entitlements and
shall be compensated for all lost wages, including
overtime benefits which would accrue to him, as provided
for in Rule 15 of the Scheduled Agreement.
FINDINGS
The Claimant was subject to an investigative hearing under the
following charge:
yq ~~3-y~
Violating the Carrier's "Excessive Absenteeism
Policy" for Maintenance of Way employees whereas you were
absent or late on the following days:
January 6-7, 1998 -- Absent
January 12 -- Absent
January 13 -- Late Arrival
January 14, 16 -- Absent
January 19 -- Late Arrival
January 23 -- Absent
Following the hearing, the Claimant was dismissed from
service.
The Carrier has had in effect since 1990 a Maintenance of Way
Excessive Absenteeism Policy which includes the following:
Maintenance of Way Employees failing to report to
work or reporting to work late, or departing from work
early for (3) incidents in a thirty (30) day period are
considered as being "Excessively Absent". In cases where
the employee reports off "ill" for several consecutive
days, this constitutes one (1) incident.
The Claimant, hired in July 1997, was subject to the Policy's
progressive discipline three times within the first six months of
employment. The final instances of absences and tardiness here
under review clearly exceeded the limit of three absences in a 30day period.
The organization argues that unusual personal circumstances
were the cause of the Claimant's unsatisfactory attendance. As
found in several previous Awards, however, the established policy
encompasses all absences, regardless of cause. Given the opportunity afforded the Claimant through progressive and hopefully
corrective discipline, the Board has no basis to disturb the
Carrier's dismissal action in line with its absenteeism policy.
-2-
As stated in Special Board of Adjustment No. 986, Award No.
167:
. . . this is an excessive absenteeism case and,
therefore, as this Board has held on numerous occasions
in the past, the reasons for the absence are not relevant.
A
W A R D
Claim denied.
HERBERT L. MARX, Jr., Chairman and Neutral rber
i ~.,L
B. A. WINTER, Employee Member
e
7.
W. H. RO. NSON, Jr, a rier Member
NEW YORK, NY
DATED:
210
9