-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 was disciplined for allegedly having reported for work an hour or more late on April 16, 1984, and then offering what Carrier said was a lie or fabricated reason for being tardy.
Although discipline as administered was a 90-day suspension, the Claimant had first been discharged from all service on the basis of what Carrier submits was its initial concern with respect to the manner Claimant had explained his lateness in reporting for work on the date in question. In this connection, the carrier directs attention to testimony of its District Manager at a hearing requested by Claimant in pursuance of Article 14 of the current Rules Agreement, whereby he stated:
At the company hearing Claimant asserted that Carrier's District Manager "didn't.get the whole story." In this regard, Claimant proceeded to testify as follows:
In further testimony the Claimant stated he had dropped off a friend's daughter in Dalhart, Texas at 7:50 A.M. while enroute to work; he had arrived at his job site or assigned duty point in Dalhart Texas at 7:55 A.M.; he "had assumed duty at 8 o'clock": he spoke with the District Manager when the latter got off the telephone at 8:20 A.M.; and, he challenged testimony of the District Manager anti the Welder he was assigned to work with that he had not reported for work until 8:10 or 8:15 A.M. Furthermore, and contrary to testimony offered by the Welder that he had personally told Claimant twice on Friday, April 13, 1984, that their assigned starting time on Monday, April 16, 1984, had been moved up from 8:00 A.M. to 7:00 A.M., Claimant maintained that he had not been given such information, and that it was his understanding the assigned starting time was 8:00 A.M., and not 7:00 A.M. as maintained by the Carrier.
1984 and June 6, 1984. It had been recessed and reconvened for the Carrier to call an additional witness and, according to the hearing officer, to permit Claimant opportunity to introduce copy of his telephone bill to show a telephone call had been made to the District Manager's home on the date in question. In this latter regard, although the District Manager had testified that he had no knowledge of Claimant having called his home while he was at work, Claimant proceeded to place on the record the following statement immediately before the hearing was recessed:
At the reconvened' hearing, Claimant produced his monthly statement from Southwestern Bell Telephone. It reveals a telephone call had been made from Claimant's telephone number to the District Manager's residence at 6:44 A.M. on April 16, 1984.
in connection with his earlier testimony relative to having been stopped by a police officer, Claimant had- introduced Oklahoma Uniform Violations Complaint No. 22182. It shows Claimant had been issued the complaint "on or about 4/16/84 at 6:00 A:M." for a "speeding" offense by traveling 51 mph in a 45 mph zone as indicated on radar. Also written on the complaint are the words: "(Expired License)", "(Speeding)", and "Warning".
.When the hearing reconvened, Claimant was asked to clarify for the record certain time elements previously brought out during the first day of hearing. In this connection, Claimant gave the following explanation relative to the above police complaint:
In response to a question, Claimant said he had been stopped by the police officer "prior to 6 a.m." He also asserted that since it was approximately 9 or 10 miles between Tyrone and Hooker (his
residence), he left the place or location where he had been stopped by the police officer at approximately 6:30.A.M. to return home, where he first attempted to call Carrier's Dalhart offices, but, finding the lines busy, then placed a call to the District Manager's residence at 6:44 A.M.
The record also shows Claimant had responded."Yes" to the following question asked of him at the reconvened hearing:
As concerned the location of the day care center where he had dropped off the friend's daughter, Claimant said it was a few blocks from the depot at Dalhart.
As concerns the starting time for Claimant's assignment on the date in question, we find no reason to hold other than that it was established by the record to have been 7:00 A.M., and that Claimant had in fact not reported on time. We likewise believe that by his own actions the Claimant showed he was aware that he was late for work. In this respect, we think he demonstrated this belief when he went to office upon his arrival at work to offer an explanation to the District Manager without being called to such office. We also think it apparent there would have been no reason for hurried telephone calls at 6:44 A.M. to the Carrier's offices or the District Manager's home if the Claimant believed his starting time was 8:00 A.M. rather than 7:00 A.M.
As concerns the complaint or ticket issued by the police officer. We fail to comprehend from reading copy of this ticket as attached to the transcript of hearing, the Claimant maintaining that it is merely a "warning" ticket, since the bottom portion of the ticket, albeit the copy is not completely legible, shows that the police officer had listed a court appearance date, and that data in this regard was followed by Claimant's signature promising "to appear in said court at said time & place."
Robert E. Peterson, Chairman
and Neutral Member