` 1
BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1040
Case No. 9
PARTIES: S00 LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
TO
DISPUTE: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Appealof Claimant Mark A. Pfeiffer's, Extra Gang
Foreman, five working-day suspension on
July
25,
1991, for absenting himself from duty without
proper authority on
July
22, 1991.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Mark A. Pfeiffer was employed by the Carrier as an
extra gang foreman in Wisconsin.
On
July
25, 1991, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he
was being assessed a five working-day suspension, effective with
the close of work on
July
24, 1991, from the service of the
Carrier as a result of absenting himself from duty without proper
authority on
July
22, 1991. He was further advised to protect
his assignment on August 1, 1991.
On August 2, 1991, the Organization, on the Claimant's
behalf, requested that the Carrier agree to the scheduling of a
hearing to determine the facts surrounding the assessment of the
five working-day suspension.
The hearing took place on September 4, 1991. On September
13, 1991, the Carrier notified the Claimant that his five
working-day suspension was being upheld and that the Carrier's
actions were warranted and proper.
On September 16, 1991, the Claimant appealed his suspension
and requested that this matter be brought before this Board.
- lnua-q
This Board has reviewed the testimony and evidence in this
case and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record
to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of absenting
himself from duty without proper authority on July 22, 1991. The
record reveals that the Claimant actually left the property on
that date and did not advise the timekeeper that he would not be
present. Although he stated that he attempted to contact the
Project Roadmaster and Project Manager to advise them that he
would be leaving the area, he also admits that he was unable to
contact either one of them. This Board recognizes that it was a
serious matter that the Claimant had to attend to, however, he
violated the rules by not obtaining the appropriate permission
from supervision before he left the area. It is evident from the
transcript that there is some personality conflict between the
Claimant and his supervisors. However, the fact remains that he
was in violation of the rules on the date in question and by
behaving in such a fashion, he subjected himself to discipline.
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 record reveals that the Claimant had over ten years of
service prior to this incident and had received no previous
discipline. Given that lengthy service of the Claimant, the
circumstances involved in this incident, and the nature of the
f
2
. ~Ob-~l
infraction, this Board-must find that the Carrier acted
unreasonably when it issued the Claimant a five-day suspension.
Therefore, this Board hereby orders that the five-day suspension
of the Claimant be reduced to a written warning and the Claimant
shall be made whole fof all lost earnings as a result of the
suspension.
AWARD
Claim sustained in part. The five-day suspension is hereby
reduced to a written warning and the Claimant is to be made whole
for his lost pay resulting from the suspension.
PETHR . MEYERS
Neuter 1 Member
Carrier Member Organization Member
Dated:
3
3