Did the Carrier comply with Rule 25 of the Agreement when it charged J. B. Meekins with violation of Operating Rules - General Rule A, General Regulations GR-l and GR-2 and was substantial evidence adduced at the Investigation on December 5, 2012, to prove the charges; and was the discipline assessed in the form of permanent dismissal warranted?
Public Law Board No. 7529 finds and holds that Employee and Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; and, that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed the record and determined that the Carrier complied with Rule 25 of the Agreement and the Claimant was afforded all of his "due process" Agreement rights.
On November 9, 2012, Claimant was directed to attend a formal Investigation on November 19, 2012, which was mutually postponed until December 5, 2012, concerning in pertinent part the following charge:
On December 21, 2012, Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty as charged and was assessed discipline in the form of permanent dismissal. Subsequently the Claimant requested expedited handling of his case as provided for in Appendix (N) Expedited Discipline Agreement of June 1, 1999 BMWE/CSXT Agreement.
The facts indicate that the Claimant was regularly assigned as a Machine Operator at Cayce, SC, when he made a Hardship Request Transfer so as to be in closer proximity to his home for financial and marital reasons. On October 24th, the Claimant made arrangements with the Carrier to work in Dillon, SC, on October 25 and 29, 2012, because that work site was closer to his home. The Carrier further agreed to allow the Claimant to work at Florence, SC, beginning on October 30th that was even nearer his residence. The Claimant did not report for work on October 25, 2012, or on October 29, 2012, his next scheduled work day. The Claimant was instructed to report for work in Florence, SC, beginning on October 30th and he did not report to work from October 30, 2012 through November 9, 2012, the date of the charge letter.
As stated above the record reveals that the Claimant did not report to Dillon, SC, on October 25th and the Claimant did not inform his immediate Supervisor that he would not report to work and did not report to work on that date (See Transcript pages 5, 18 and 23). Claimant admitted he made no arrangements to work on October 29th, his next scheduled work day and despite instructions by the Carrier to report to Florence on October 30th, the Claimant admitted he did not inform the Carrier that he would not report to work and did not report to any point leading up to his charge letter (See Transcript pages 5, 18, 23, 26 and 27).
In his defense the Claimant testified on pages 32 and 33 of the transcript that he would have reported for work if the Carrier had provided prompt reimbursement of expenses incurred prior to his returning to work. The record reveals that the Claimant never advised the Carrier of his alleged predicament and that he could not report to work until his expenses were reimbursed prior to the formal Investigation. Additionally, the testimony substantiated that because of the Claimant's own procrastination and his incorrect filing of expense reports the time period for reimbursement of his expenses was protracted, all of which was due to Claimant's mistakes or inaction.
Claimant also suggested that his failure to report to work was attributable to being emotionally overwhelmed account of the personal problems that he was facing and he was working with the Employee Assistance Program to correct those problems. On page 35 of transcript the Claimant was questioned as follows: .