Award No.
 STATEMENT CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:






artinez `. . . must be compensated for all time lost and have any reference to the investigation removed from his personal record as outline in Rule 8 of the effective Agreement. "' FINDINGS:
 .At the tine of the events leading up to this claim, the Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a Laborer on Gang 9086. y letter dated August 6, 2003, the Claimant was notified to appear for formal investigation and hearing to develop the facts and determine the Claimant's responsibility, if any, in connection with the charge of being absent without authority on

 . July 23, 2003. After a postponement, the hearing was conducted on August 27, 0.
 1

letter dated September 11, 2003, the Claimant was notice t as result of a hearing,
 he had been found guilty as charged. This letter further notified the Claimant that s a .
 result of his prior disciplinary history of Level 2, combined with the current Level 1, the
 Claimant was being placed at a Level 3 UPGRADE discipline status, meaning he was
 being issued a five-day suspension. The Organization filed a claim challenging e
 Carrier's decision, and the Carrier denied the claim.
process in accordance with the Agreement. The Claimant received adequate notice of his investigation, was allowed ample representation, and was ale to present `s own witnesses, as well as cross-examine all of the Carrier's witnesses who were present t the investigation. The Carrier points out that the Organization's only procedural objection is based on the argument that the Carrier allegedly prevente the Claimant from presenting a written statement to suport his explanation for being late to work on July 3, 2003, and revented the Claimant from presenting a witness who would have corroborated this explanation. The Carrier argues that it has o duty to provide witnesses for the Claimant. The Claimnt's inability to secure his witness' appearance at the investigation is not attributable to the Carrier, so it is not valid basis for a procedural objection. As for the Claimant's written explanation, the Carrier emphasizes tat the Hearing Officer took into account the Claimant's verbal explanation, so the written statement had o material effect on the outcome of this investigation ,


L


 The Carrier theargues that the transcript contains substantial evidence so of a finding of guilt. The Carrier asserts that the Claimant admitted that a had the means of contacting his supervisors in emergencies, and he understood his responsibilities with regard to reporting for duty. The Carrier insists that these admissions establish that the Claimant knew the seriousness of his absence and the extent of his violations. Moreover, at the tine of the incidents at issue, the Claimant had been working with this gang for only one week, yet he already had been tardy twice. The Claimant also admitted that he was tardy on Jly 3, and he failed to info his supervisor within the one-hour time limit set forth in the Gang Policy.
 The Carrier argues at it is well established that admission of guilt is per se substantial evidence of a rule violation. The Carrier asserts that the evidence adduced at the investigation, in conjunction with the Claimant's admission f guilt, is ore to enough substantial evidence of the Claimant's culpability. The Carrier maintains that there is no substantive reason for the Claimant's discipline to be overturned.
 The Carrier goes on to contend that once an ar itral panel verifies tat substantial evidence supports a finding of guilty, the panel lacks authority to overturn the level of iscipline assessed, even if the discipline may seem harsh, unless there is sufficient demonstration that the discipline was arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of Crrier discretion. The Carrier insists that the discipline at issue was not arbitrary, capricious,

 an abuse of Carrier iscretio . Carrier emphasizes that assesse in t

                                          -SBA qaq

                                          A wd P 3 (o

Grievant's case was correct and in accordance with the e Carrier's UPGRADE Policy.. The
 accumulation of discipline up to Level 3 is a direct effect of the Claimant's refusal to take
 responsibility for his actions. The Carrier maintains that there is no reason for the
 discipline imposed to be overturned.

    The Carrier ultimately contends that the instant claim should be denied in its


entirety.
 The Organization initially contends that the Carrier failed to afford the -Claimant a fair and impartial investigation. The organization points out that the Hearing officer failed to allow the Claimant to enter a signed statement from a witness who was able to e present at the hearing, and the Carrier also denied the Organization's request to have Foreman Bell in attendance at the hearing for questioning.
      The organization also argues that e Carrier failed to refute the Organization's

positions as they were set forth in the initial appeal. The Organization maintains
 failure means that the statements in the Organization"s initial appeal must be e accepted as
 fact. The Organization emphasizes that' as set forth in a initial appeal, the Claimant
 arrived at the work site on June 21 St with about twenty other employees, and ere has
 been no explanation for why Foreman. ell considered this as being late. The
 Organization points out that the Grievant was only a few moments late on a date
 question due to problems with his atomobile.

      The Organization maintains that the discipline assesse the Claimant was

                                              wd


                                            and

capricious, unsupported, , and must not stand. The Organization ultimately contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety.
 The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this oard.
 This Board has reviewed evidence and testimony in is case, d we fin that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of reporting late to work on July 23, 2003. The record reveals that the Claimant carne a few minutes late because of battery problems with his c d he admitted at he id not call supervisor.
 Once this yard has etie that ere is sufficient evidence ' a recor t support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the a oisciline imposed. This oar will not set aside Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its actions

 to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
      There . . hat . 1 .1°'~! 9 !at . 9 . 1 r T . 9

      is no question t the Claimant was e in ts case. However, the

Claimant did have a good excuse that he had c problems. Although the Carrier had a
 justifiable reason to find the Claimant guilty of violating the attendance policy, the
 discipline impose against the Claimant was without just cause because it was too severe
 given the circumstances. The Claimant was issued a Level 3 3 discipline, which translated
 into a five-day suspension. Given the seriousness of the wrongdoing in this case, this
 oar must fin that the action taken y the Carrier was it out just cause
 RM.. 'S
h t 1
 constituted unreasonable arbitrary punishment.
 This Board hereby finds that the discipline should be reduced to a Level (written warning) and the Claimant should be made whole for any lost pay resulting from the improper issuance of a Level 3 to this Claimant.

 The claim is sustained in part and denied in . The Level discipline of the
 Claimant shall be reduced to a Level 2 (written warning) and the Claimant shall a made

 whole for any back pay that a lost as result of the v - suspension.

                    I


                    M

                        E

                          tr e


    1

    T


    1~.


      IV ME-04B E R


DATED:

 6