SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD NO. 947
Claimant - J. R. Harris
Award No. 68
Case No. 68
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO and
DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (western
Lines)
STATMLENT That the Carrier's decision to assess and
OF CLAIM place on Claimant's personal record thirty
(30) demerits, was excesslve, 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 remove the thirty (30)
demerits from Claimant's personal record, 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 November 6, 1987, the Claimant did not show up for work
and did not properly notify the Carrier he would be absent. The
Carrier charged the Employe with a violation of Rule 604 of the
1
Rules and Regulations for the Government of Maintenance of Way
and Structures and Engineering Department Employes of the
Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The rule cited by the
Carrier reads in part.
Rule 604: DUTY-REPORTING OR ABSENCE:
Employes must report for duty at the
designated time and place . . . .They must
not absent themselves from duty without
proper authority.
The Claimant had been admonished previously for not
contacting the appropriate person(s) on days he did not intend
to report to work. He was aware of the requirements placed upon
him, not only by the rules, but by his supervisors. This Board
sees no reason, short of independence, which prevented the
Claimant from following the proper procedure in reporting his
absence on November 6, 1987. Even if he did report his intended
absence to a co-worker, he was well aware of the directive
issued by his supervisor which required that he call one of
three particular supervisors. He did not have the authority to
alter the directions to suit his self-determination of the
rules. As this Board has said on many occasions, it is not the
job of employees to interpret the rules. When they are given an
order which they feel violates the agreement, they are to comply
with the order and file a claim through there Union.
In view of the Claimant's record and his earlier
discipline regarding the protection of his assignment, this
Board does not believe the issuance of thirty (30) demerits was
unreasonable.
2
9q7-6g
AWARD
The claim is denied.
Carol J perXrNeu~tvral
Submitted: .-
D'ay 20, 1988
Denver, Colorado
3