SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 924
Award No.
$r
Docket No. 89
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The sixty (60) day
suspension assessed
Trackman R.E. Lue for
allegedly absenting himself without authority was without just
and sufficient cause. [Organization File 4D-4904; Carrier File
81-85-50-D]
(2) Trackman R.E. Lue shall be allowed the remedy prescribed in
Rule 19(d)."
FINDINGS:
This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds
and holds that the employes and the Carrier involved are respectively
employes and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as
amended and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein.
On September 14, 1984, Claimant left work early due to pain from
an earlier on-the-job injury. Claimant told his foreman that he had
scheduled a doctor's appointment; the foreman instructed Claimant to
report back on his condition. Claimant did not report back and did
not work on September 17 and 18. Claimant subsequently was informed
to attend a formal investigation of the charge:
Your responsibility in connection with absenting yourself from
your work assignment without authority on September 17 and 18,
1984.
The investigation was held as scheduled, and a copy of the transcript
has been made a part of the record. We find that the investigation
was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case,
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
SQL
?P
Y
-4wD
SI/
the Carrier's finding that the Claimant was guilty of the charges of
absenting himself from his work assignment without authority. The
record is clear that although the Claimant claimed he was suffering
from back pain on the dates in question, he was granted leave to be
absent by the Carrier for the sole purpose of seeing a doctor and
reporting back as to his physical condition. The Claimant did not see
the doctor on the dates in question and did not report back to the
Carrier that he had been unable to see the doctor. Consequently,
there is sufficient evidence that the Claimant was in violation of the
rules.
once this Board determines that a claimant was properly found
guilty, we then turn our attention to the nature of the discipline
imposed. The Claimant in this case has had numerous previous
disciplines for attendance-related matters dating back to 1979. Based
on that record, we do not find that it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious for the Carrier to issue a 60-day suspension to the
Claimant for this violation.
Award:
Claim denied.
r%
I.,
Chairman, Neutral Me~b.er
Crie~f Member Employee Me
Date:
/fif7
2