SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1049
AWARD NO. 175
Parties to Dispute:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
AND
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Statement of Claim:
Claim on behalf of C. E. Cunningham for reinstatement with seniority, vacation and all
other rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost as a result of his dismissal from service
following a formal investigation on January 10; 2007, concerning failure to protect his
job assignment and his excessive absenteeism in that he was absent from his work
assignment on August 9, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, September 1, 20, 29, October 25, 30, 2006
and continuing.
(Carrier File MW-GNVL-06-24-LM-516)
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are
carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and this board is duly
constituted by agreement under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter.
After thoroughly reviewing and considering the record and the parties' presentations, the Board finds that
the claim should be disposed of as follows:
The record reflects that Claimant was absent with permission on August 9, 20006. On August 22 he was
again absent and his supervisor expressly instructed him to call in when he was going to be absent.
Nevertheless, Claimant was absent the entire week of August 28 - September 1 without calling in. When
he returned to work, the supervisor again reinforced the need to call in when Claimant was going to be
absent. On September 20, Claimant was absent without calling in and on September 29, he was tardy
without calling in. On October 25, be was absent without calling in for permission and was again told by
his supervisor that there was no excuse for a failure to call in. Nevertheless, Claimant was absent on
October 30 without calling in. Claimant did call in the night of October 30 and advised that he would be
absent on October 31. The supervisor responded that as far as he was concerned, Claimant was done and
told Claimant he could resign or face an investigation. Claimant did not resign, but he did not report to
work on subsequent days, resulting in his being withheld from service and noticed for investigation on
November 3.
There is no question that Carrier proved the charge by substantial evidence. Indeed, the record allows no
other conclusion than that Claimant repeatedly was a no call, no show, despite being counseled to call in
if he was going to be absent. Claimant was a very short term employee, with just over one year of
service. At the hearing, he displayed his indifference to his obligations as an employee. He testified that
he was not familiar with Safety and General Conduct Rule GR-6 which prohibits absence without proper
authority. When asked if he had a Rule Book, Claimant responded:
'3 A '® 49
Somewhere. I don't know where it's at. He gave me one. Everybody got one. I don't know
where it is. I ain't never paid no attention to it.
Carrier is simply not required to retain such an irresponsible and indifferent employee in its employ. The
claim is denied.
M. H. Malin
Chairman and Neutral Member
. W. Kr eke D. L. Kerby
Organization Member Carrier Member
Issued at Chicago, Illinois on February 5, 2008