BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

and

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD




STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:



FINDINGS:

Carrier as a bridgeman.

investigation and hearing to determine his responsibility, if any, for allegedly failing to

 report for duty as assigned and for allegedly being absent without proper authority on

 March 6 and 7, 2002. The investigation was conducted, as scheduled, on March 22,

 2002. As a result of the investigation, the Claimant was found to have violated

 Maintenance of Way General Rule J, and he was dismissed from the Carrier's service.

 The Organization thereafter tiled a claim on the Claimant's behalf, challenging the

 Carrier's decision to discharge the Claimant from his employment. The Carrier denied the

 claim.

to the Carrier when he was absent without authority on March 6 and 7, 2002. The Carrier emphasizes that during the investigation, it was developed that the Claimant did not inform his supervisor that he would be absent, except that on March 6, lie called to say that he was going to be thirty to sixty minutes late. The Carrier points out that the Claimant actually did not show up at all.
 The Carrier argues that the Claimant was aware of the proper instructions for calling, in to work. Moreover, the Claimant previously had been counseled and disciplined concerning his non-compliance with the rules, and he recently served a sixtyday suspension. The Carrier asserts that it attempted, without success, to correct the Claimant's behavior through progressive discipline on a number of occasions. The Claimant's dismissal is the final straw.
 The Carrier maintains that Boards have upheld a carrier's right to discipline an employee who repeatedly violates policies. The Carrier further asserts that it is obligated to impose discipline in cases where rules are violated and due process has been maintained. The Carrier argues that considering the Claimant's work history, dismissal is quite proper in this case. The Carrier ultimately contends that the claim should be denied in its entirety.
 The Organization contends that the Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof in this matter. The Organization argues that the transcript does not contain any positive evidence whatever that supports the Carrier's findings that the Claimant's actions were
inconsistent with the Carrier's philosophy. The Organization maintains that because the Claimant was absent from the investigation, the only reasonable conclusion is that there was no probative evidence to support the Carrier's findings. The Organization contends that the Carrier failed to prove the charges leveled against the Claimant.
 The Organization then asserts that the record demonstrates that the Carrier prejudged the Claimant. The Organization points out that Carrier Officer Meador preferred the charges against the Claimant, presided over the investigation, and assessed the discipline at issue. The Organization emphasizes that Meador did not consider a postponement of the investigation. The Organization argues that the hearing in this matter was not fair and impartial, and the Carrier's decision to dismiss the Claimant therefore should be rescinded.
 The Organization further argues that the discipline imposed upon the Claimant was arbitrary, capricious, and should not be allowed to stand. The Organization emphasizes that the Claimant should not have been dismissed in this instance because he was not present at the investigation to present his testimony. The Carrier failed to show that the Claimant intended to disregard Rule J, and its decision to discipline the Claimant should be overturned.
 The Organization additionally contends that the Claimant was assessed a sixtydays suspension for absenteeism which was to commence on March 24, 2002, three days after the investigation in this case. The Carrier entered the Claimant's record into the

                          3

                                              ?L~ 3 (00(3

V4 Ls.~ j a(3 transcript, including a reference to that sixty-day suspension, for the stated purpose of using that record to determine the measure of discipline, if any, that may be assessed in the instant case. The Organization emphasizes that because the Claimant had not fully served the sixty-day suspension at the time he was dismissed, the Claimant did not have any opportunity to demonstrate to the Carrier that lie had changed his ways upon returning to service. The Organization asserts that the Carrier's high-handed tactics renders this discipline arbitrary and capricious, and the Organization argues that the discipline should be overturned in its entirety. Discipline is not to be punitive.
 The Organization ultimately contends that the claim should be sustained in its entirety.
 The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this Board.
 This Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by the Organization, and we find them to be without merit.
 This Board has reviewed the evidencc and testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record it) ,upport the finding that the Claimant was guilty of being absent without proper author i1< on March 6 and 7, 2002. The Claimant did call in on March 6, 2002, and said he %c as _,oin- to be thirty to sixty minutes late. However, he never showed up for work that dav. I le then missed the next clay as wcll.

      Once this Board has detertnincd that ftcrc is sufficient evidence in the record to


                          4

                                              'P L 8 t- 04 3 19wd a0

support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its actions to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
 This Claimant has previously received numerous suspensions for attendance violations. The most recent suspension was a sixty-day suspension that was issued in late 2001. Given the extensive progressive discipline that has been issued to this Claimant with no positive results, this Board cannot find that the Canrier acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it terminated the Claimant's employment in this case.

 Therefore, the claim must be denied.

 AWARD:
      The claim is denied.


                    v

                    1 P TER R. M S

                    utral Member


O RATION ER CA ILR MEMBER
 DATED: a~-O' DATED: ~Z~ 5~

 5