PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5396
Parties
to the
Dispute
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
OF WAY EMPLOYES
PLB Case No. 38
NMB Case No. 38
vS..
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY
(Western Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAM
1. That the Carrier violated the provisions
of the current Agreement when it dismissed
Track Laborer Mr. D. C. Perry. Said action
being excessive, unduly harsh and in abuse
of discretion.
2. That the Carrier now reinstate Claimant to
his former Carrier position with seniority
and all other rights restored unimpaired,
with pay for all loss suffered and his record
cleared of all charges.
An investigation was held in absentia on April 27, 1995, to
investigate Claimants responsibility, if any,
2
539~-~
...in connection with your alleged disappearance on April 11, 1995, after receiving instructions to follow the weed sprayer to crescent
Lake to pick up the Curve Lube Maintainer and
return to Tule Lake; your failure to report
for duty the following day, April 12, 1995;
and your failure to contact your supervisor or
any company official of your whereabouts or to
explanation (sic) these unusual occurrences on
April 11 and 12, 1995.
At the hearing, the organization requested a postponement
which was denied. The Hearing Officer concluded that Claimant
was aware of the time, date, and location of the hearing, because
he had signed for the charge letter. This Board finds nothing in
the record, either at the hearing or subsequently on the property, that would explain why Claimant was unable to be present.
Absent such evidence, we must conclude that he elected to be
absent upon his own volition.
The Organization alleges in defense of Claimant that he did
not willfully disregard his responsibilities. Rather, his
behavior was that of an individual whose mental abilities'were
not fully intact. While that is certainly possible, there is
simply no evidence in the record to indicate any impairment,
either temporary or long standing.
Carrier pointed out that on April 11, 1995, Claimant was
directed by the Roadmaster to drive a coworker's vehicle from
Klamath Falls to Crescent Lake to pick up the coworker and bring
I
S39G~-38
him back. Claimant never appeared. Chemult Track Supervisor
Williams reported talking to claimant that evening=and quoted him
as saying that he was lost, but that he could find his way back
to Klamath Falls that night. The next day, when neither Claimant
nor the vehicle appeared, the State Police were alerted. Efforts
were made to reach claimant by radio and Company personnel were
directed to look for him. At 5 PM, the truck was located in Tule
Lake and claimant was found in a bar, playing pool. Claimant was
vague as to what had occurred, saying that he did not know how to
use the radio and that he never thought about telephoning.
There is no doubt, as Carrier suggests, that claimant's
behavior was bizarre. No reasonable explanation has ever been
provided. Employes may not simply walk away from their jobs
without proper authorization. Claimant effectively abandoned his
employment with carrier. Under all of the circumstances of this
case, it must be concluded that his removal was warranted.
AWARD
Claim denied.
C. gold,
I Neutra Chairman
,- .F. Foose, D.A. Ring,
Employe Member Carrier Memb r
/- 7- w
Date of Approval