The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and, the parties were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Claimant, an employee of Carrier for about six years, was dismissed from service on January 27, 1984 for failure to report for work on January 26, 1984, an absence which Carrier maintains represented a continued failure by Claimant to protect his'employment in violation of Rule 810. In this latter regard, the record shows that Claimant had been given a written warning relative to unauthorized absences from service on September 29 and 30, 1983, and that he had also accepted without protest a 10-day suspension from service for being absent from work without proper authority on October 19, 1983.
In defense of the Claimant, the Organization submits that he was "a victim of circumstances as it was absolutely impossible for
There is no question that since the house trailer assigned to Claimant was unfit for habitation, that Claimant had been told
by the District Manager that the company would repay him for expenses incurred involving motel accommodations, meals and mileage. It is also unquestioned that the District Manager had -not informed Claimant that he could receive an advance on such expenses, and that it took about a month from the date an expense account would be submitted for an employee to be reimbursed for expenses.
The record also snows, as the organization states, that both the District Manager and the Foreman were aware that Claimant was experiencing problems with his personal automobile.
Testimony of the District Manager and the Foreman also reveals that action had been taken to dismiss Claimant from service prior to their offering Claimant an opportunity, after he had reported for work on January 27, 1984, to explain the reason for this one day absence from work.
We also think it evident from the record that Claimant was aware that if he was not able to contact his foreman relative to an absence from work that he was to then call the District Manager's office in Tyler, Texas. That Claimant would offer as a reason for not having called this office was because he had received a l0-day suspension the last time he did so, does not excuse his failure to have followed prescribed instructions. He should understand, if indeed he does not already, that despite an employee following recognized procedures to timely report an inability to be a£ work on a particular day, the employee may still be held accountable by the Carrier for an absence from work.
Although the transcript of investigation does not show that Claimant was asked to produce a statement of charges covering repairs to his car, we think it should have been incumbent upon Claimant to have produced such documentation of his own volition so as to. have removed any doubt about the time, location, distance to the nearest garage and telephone, and extent of damage to his car that made him a purported victim of circumstance. We
do not mean to infer by this that because an employee is able to show he had transportation problems that this necessarily excuses an absence from work. To the contrary, we believe an employee has the responsible to maintain any personal vehicle used to get to work in proper running order, and that notwithstanding an automotive breakdown the employee remains obliged to contact the Carrier to report an absence from duty, even if the first opportunity to do so falls beyond the established starting time for the employee's job. However, we do believe there are instances when emergency or unforeseen' circumstances may well dictate sufficient reason to hold an employee somewhat less accountable for an automotive breakdown or an inability to contact the carrier.
.In the circumstances of record, while mitigating circumstances may have contributed to Claimant's absence from work on the date in question, we think it must be held that he had not taken all
appropriate action to properly and timely notify the Carrier as to.the reasons that dictated he be absent from work.
Turning now to the question of proper assessment of discipline. As this Board stated following its hearing on the dispute and in directing that Claimant be immediately reinstated to service with seniority and other benefits unimpaired, the penalty of dismissal from service was harsh and unreasonable. in our opinion, a disciplinary suspension of 30 calendar days would have been proper in keeping with the circumstances of record and the dictates of progressive discipline. Therefore, in addition to previously awarded reinstatement to service, the Board will hold Claimant be compensated for all time lost beyond 30 calendar days from the date he was removed from service to the date he was returned to .service following the Board's earlier decision with respect to that particular portion of the. claim.
Robert E. Peterson, Chairman
and Neutral Member