PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5606
PARTIES) BROTHERHOOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
DIVISION OF THE INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
TO )
DISPUTE ) SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that in violation
of Article 26 and Article 33 of the Rules Agreement the Carrier did
not have a right to issue a letter of reprimand without providing
Claimant David L. McCaw benefit of a fair and impartial
investigation. The letter should be removed from Claimant's record.
FINDINGS:
The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the
parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, as amended; this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and,
the parties were given due notice of bearing thereon.
Under date of February 20, 2007 the Carrier Superintendent-Mechanical East
issued a hand delivered letter to Claimant that reads as follows:
A review of the past three months' attendance records reveals a
discernible pattern of absenteeism. You have been absent on at least
three (3) occasions either the day preceding or the day after your
scheduled rest days or scheduled days off, i.e., paid personal day,
vacation day, etc., during this period. Our records indicate the
following absences:
1. 01/08/07 day after rest days
2. 01/09/07 2 days after rest days
3. 01/10/07 3 days after rest days
This pattern of absences will not be tolerated. The next absence of
this type, prior to December 21, 2007 may result in formal
disciplinary action. Hopefully this letter will be sufficient notice and
will forestall the need for any further action concerning this matter.
If I can be of help, you may with your Local Representative's
assistance, make an appointment to discuss this subject. Also, please
remember there is an Employee Assistance Program available to all
employees that can be reached at 1-800-1834.
Page I
LNO,5"(o
AWARD NO. 69
CASE NO. 69
Claimant is shown to have affixed his signature to the above referenced letter under
date of February 21, 2006.
Subsequently, by letter of March 15, 2007, the Organization filed the claim at issue,
asserting that Claimant was instructed by the Superintendent that he had to sign the
letter. The Organization submitted that Claimant was absent from service because
of illness on January 8, 9, and 10, 2007; contacted his supervisor, and requested that
he be allowed to take sick days for the time off; and, Claimant was, in fact, paid
three sick leave days for the time at issue in pursuance of Article 33. Further, the
Organization pointed out that the Carrier letter stated that in the last three months
Claimant was only absent the three sick leave days.
The Organization also protested the letter as threatening in nature and constituting
the issuance of a letter of a letter of reprimand without benefit of a fair and
impartial investigation in accordance with Article 26.
Although the Board recognizes the right of the Carrier to issue cautionary letters of
warnings to employees pertaining to such matters as excessive absenteeism, it does
not appear from the record before the Board that sufficient reason existed for the
Carrier to have done so in this particular instance. Claimant's consecutive days of
absence account a single period of sickness does not fall within the purview of what
the Carrier has described as a discernible pattern of absences. In this respect, the
Superintendent stated the following in denial of the claim: "A discernible pattern is
created when an employee calls in sick on days before or after their rest days at least
three times in one quarter."
In the circumstances, the Board will direct that the February 20, 2007 letter be
removed from Claimant's file.
AWARD: Claim sustained.
Anthony F. Lomanto
Carrier Member
North Billerica, MA
Dated 5
c,~ f.
!~,
Robert E. Peterson
Chair & Neutral Member
Stuart A. Hulburt, Jr.
Organization Member
Page 2