SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD NO. 947
Claimant - Douglas Allen Pearce
Award No. 108
Case No. 108
PARTIES
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO and
DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
Lines)
STATEMENT
That the Carrier's decision to suspend
OF CLAIM
Claimant.for a period of thirty (30) days was
excessive, unduly harsh and in abuse of
discretion, and in violation of the terms and
provisions of the current Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
That because of the Carrier's failure to prove
and support the charges by introduction of
substantial bona fide evidence, that Carrier
now be required to compensate Claimant for any
and all loss of earnings suffered, and that
the charges be removed from his record.
FINDINGS
Upon reviewing the record, as submitted, I find that the
Parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of
the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Special Board
of Adjustment is duly constituted and has jurisdiction of the
Parties and the subject matter; with this arbitrator being sole
signatory.
On January 3, 1990, the Claimant received a charge letter
advising him to be present at a formal hearing to be held on
January 12, 1990 at Dunsmuir, California, to determine whether
1
~~7-l08
he had violated Rule 604 on September 26, October 10, November
17, 21, 28, 29, December 5, 7, and 8, 1989, by failing to
protect his employment. The Rule allegedly violated reads as
follows:
Rule 604: DUTY - REPORTING OR ABSENCE:
Employes must report for duty at the
designated time and place. They must devote
themselves exclusively to the Company's
service while on duty. They must not absent
themselves from duty, exchange duties, or
substitute others in their place without
proper authority.
Continued failure by employes to protect
their employment shall be sufficient cause
for dismissal.
The Claimant failed to report for duty on January 12, 1990,
therefore, the hearing was continued until January 19, 1990. On
January 23, 1990, the Claimant received a letter advising that
the Carrier believed the evidence presented at hearing was
sufficient to prove the charges. He was suspended for thirty
(30) days.
The Claimant's record indicates he has been counseled
numerous times concerrning Absence Without Authority. Even if
the Employe is having personal problems, he has an obligation to
report to his assigned duties, or, at the very least, to call in
on days he is unable to report. This Board believes there is
sufficient evidence to show that the Claimant failed to do
either of these things with any consistency.
Often an employe's personal problems will serve to mitigate
the penalty issued in,a disciplinary action. But, there must be
some effort on the part of the employe to communicate these
2
9~7-/ag
problems in a timely manner and to discuss his situation with a
representative of the Carrier. He cannot ignore his work
responsibilities despite his problems away from work. The two
of necessity must be separated. Regardless, in this case, the
Board believes the Carrier took the Claimant's personal problems
into account when they issued him the thirty (30) day suspension
rather than more severe discipline. Furthermore, this Board has
taken into consideration the many times the Claimant has been
counseled about reporting his absences before his shift starts.
Also taken into account was the Claimant's five (5) day
suspension for violating Rule 806. These things coupled with
the Claimant's relatively short tenure, renders the discipline
issued justifiable.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
Car, J. Zamperini
Neutral
Submitted:
March
30, 1990
Denver, Colorado
3