fw
BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1040
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
Case No. 29
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Appeal of Claimant James L. Williams' termination from the Carrier's
service.
FINDINGS:
On August 16, 1995, the Carrier notified Claimant James L. Williams that a formal
investigation was being scheduled to determine the Claimant's responsibility, if any, in
connection with his alleged failure to protect his assignment as a result of being absent on July
31, August 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10, 1995. On August 25, 1995, the Claimant was notified that the
hearing would be held in abeyance until such time that he returned from medical leave. On
October 3, 1995, the Carrier notified the Claimant of the hearing date and that his original charge
was being supplemented to include his alleged continued failure to protect his assignment as a
result of being absent on August 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31,
September 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, October 2, and 3,
1995.
The hearing in this matter took place on October 20, 1995. The Claimant was not
present. On November 2, 1995, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he consistently failed to
make himself available for service and had been found guilty of all charges. As a result, the
Carrier terminated the Claimant's employment effective that date.
The Claimant advised the Carrier of his intention to appeal the discipline under the
1~-fo-2~
provisions of the Agreement of June 1, 1990.
The parties being unable to resolve the issues, this matter comes before this Board.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that there is
sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of failing to
protect his assignment on the numerous days in July, August, September, and October 1995. The
record reveals that although the Claimant called on a few of those days, most of those days he
did not call in and did not show up for work. Moreover, there is some evidence in the file that
the reason that he was not at work was that he had been sentenced to six months
in
a house of
correction for battery and was supposed to report on June 25, 1995, and did not appear. On
October 16, 1995, the Claimant was incarcerated at the_Milwaukee County House of Corrections
for Battery. It is not clear where the Claimant was on the dates that he was supposed to be at
work, but it is certain that he did not appear for work as he was required to do.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to 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 action to have been
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
The Claimant in this case has compiled a record which included a five-day suspension for
absenteeism, a ten-day suspension for absenteeism, and a twenty-day suspension for excessive _
absenteeism. Given the fact that he failed to show up for work and protect his assignment
between July 31, 1995, and October 3, 1995, this Board cannot find that the Carrier's action in
terminating his employment was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the claim will
be denied.
2
10~1~ -~G
AWARD:
Claim denied.
-v
PETER R. ME, Y~RS
Neutral Membe
Dated: January 29, 1996
3