PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5860
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
_PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAM:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on November 6, 2003, when it
dismissed the Claimant, Mr. J. L Thompson, for allegedly violating
Letter of Understanding dated July 13, 1976, after he was absent
from his job without authority for more than 5 consecutive days
beginning August 22, 2003, and continuing.
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in part (1), the Carrier
shall immediately reinstate the Claimant to service with benefits and
seniority unimpaired and make him whole for all wages lost account
of this violation. Additionally, the Carrier shall remove any mention
of this incident from the Claimant's personal record.
FINDINGS
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties
herein are carrier and employ" within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the
Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of
the hearing thereon.
The Carrier has an Agreement with the Employees that provides for a termination
of services when an Individual is absent without authority in excess of five working days.
Claimant was scheduled to work commencing August 22, 2003, but did not show,
nor did he seek permission from anyone in authority.
A letter of understanding dated July 13, 1976, reads as follows:
Page 1 Award No.
Case No. 245
"in connection with the application of (Rule 13) of the current Agreement,
this will confirm our understanding reached in conference today that,
effective October 1, 1976, to terminate the employment of an employee who
is absent from duty without authority, the Company shall address, by
Registered or Certified Mall, return receipt requested, with copy to the
General Chairman, notifying him that his seniority and employment have
been terminated due to his being absent without proper authority and that
he may, within 20 days of the date of such notice, if he desires, request that
he be given an Investigation under (Rule 13) the current Agreement
NOTE: Effective January 1, 1984, the above understanding Is to be
applied only In cases where the employee Is absent from duty
without authority more than five (5) consecutive work days."
Claimant timely requested a hearing that was held on October 14, 2003. Claimant
was not In attendance at the starting time so the parties decided to waft until 0930 to
start Shortly after 0930, the parties were notified through the General Chairman's office
that Claimant was hitch-hiking. The Investigation was again recessed until 1113 hours
and the parties, having heard nothing further from Claimant, decided to proceed
providing what facts were prevalent
From the evidence presented, It was clearly evident that Claimant was AWOL from
August 22 thru September 5 without permission.
The parties again recessed at 1123 hours and reconvened at 1237 hours.
Claimant still had not called in, nor was he present, anti both parties wrapped up the
Investigation.
It is clearly evident Claimant was off August 22 thru September 5, 2003, without
authority. The Carrier's actions in dismissing Claimant were proper and pursuant to an
existing Agreement
AWARD
Claim denied.
Page 3 Award No.
Case No. 245
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Clalmant(s) not be made.
Robert L. Hicks, Chairman 8 Neutral Member
Rick 8. ehrfi. Labor Member William L Yeck, 3rrie Member
Dated: ,.- ~z
c-1