Claimant was dismissed by letter dated April 18, 1994 for failing to comply with instructions of the Carrier to take the necessary steps to obtain recertification of his engineer's license.
The record shows that during. January, 1994, Claimant's supervisor, G. A. Fowler, repeatedly took steps in an effort to get Claimant to comply with the steps necessary for recertification of his license, including giving Claimant the certification package. Fowler also instructed Claimant on the steps necessary to complete his recertification and advised Claimant that his license would expire upon Claimant's birthday, February 22, 1994. On January
6 and 15, 1994, Fowler advised Claimant on the remaining steps necessary for recertification. Tr. 1620.
Notwithstanding Fowler's efforts, Claimant did not complete all of the steps for recertification. Claimant did not takes steps to comply with the medical portion and the national and state driving records of the recertification requirements. Tr. 21. As a result of Claimant's failure to follow all of the required steps for recertification, on his birthday February 22, 1994, Claimant's engineer's license was suspended. Tr. 22. Claimant was then charged and ultimately dismissed.
Substantial evidence supports the Carrier's determination that Claimant failed to comply with instructions. Claimant was repeatedly advised - indeed, even assisted - by the Carrier concerning his obligation to take the necessary steps for recertification. Claimant simply did not follow those instructions.
PLB 5943, Award 15
E. A. Humphreys
Page 2
As a result, Claimant's license was suspended. Under the circumstances, dismissal as a result of Claimant's failure to follow instructions was not arbitrary.
The Organization's procedural arguments concerning notification and timing of the notification of the investigation do not change the result.
First, the record shows that the Carrier attempted to notify Claimant of the investigation at Claimant's last known address, without success and even sent an individual to attempt to personally locate Claimant. Tr. 6-9, 13-14.
Second, with respect to the timing of the notice of investigation, the evidence does show that Claimant's license was suspended effective February 22, 1994 and that the notice of investigation issued April 7, 1994. The Organization thus argues that the notice of investigation issued some 45 days after the Carrier was aware that Claimant failed to recertify and hence, Rule 44 which requires the notification of charges "within ten (10) days from the time a Company Officer authorized to order investigations has or reasonably should have had information of the inci-
dents to be investigated" was not adhered to.
We disagree. The burden here is on the Organization to demonstrate that Rule 44 was not complied with. That burden has not been met.