BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) -
Northeast Corridor
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM: "Claim of System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
1. The dismissal of Mr. L. Hayes for allegedly being
excessively absent, in that you were absent in whole or in
part on November 10, 11, 15, 16, and 17 and December 1,
1988, was without just and sufficient cause and in violation
of the Agreement (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-2388D).
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated to service with seniority
and all other rights unimpaired, his record cleared of the
charges leveled against him and he shall be compensated for
all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant L. Hayes was employed as a trackman by Carrier. On
December 5, 1988 Claimant was instructed to attend a hearing in
connection with the following charge:
"You have been excessively absent, in that you were absent
in whole or in part on the following dates:
November 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and December 1, 1988".
The hearing was held on December 27, 1988, and as a result,
Claimant was dismissed from service. The Organization thereafter
filed a claim on Claimant's behalf challenging his dismissal.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in the case
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding that the Claimant was guilty of being excessively absent
during the period November 10 through December 1, 1988. He missed
work on seven days within that short period of time. This Carrier
defines excessive absenteeism to be three or more days within a 30 day
period.
qg~-boo
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our
attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set
aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find that action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
In the case at hand the claimant, despite his lengthy seniority,
had clearly received progressive discipline leading up to his
dismissal. The record reveals that he was counselled in August of
1988, warned in September of 1988, received a ten day suspension in
October of 1988, and a 30 day suspension in November of 1988. All of
that progressive discipline apparently did not have any effect on the
Claimant. At some point, a Carrier has a right to decide that an
employee who cannot show up for work can be discharged. This carrier
did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily or capriciously, in making that
determination. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
(avl(
Carrier Member Organization Member
Date:
2