SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
Case No. 110
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2399D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
DISPUTE: Claim of the Organization that:
1) Claimant never received the mandatory warning letter;
2) The ten working days suspension is not a rehabilitation
type of discipline for two days of absenteeism.
3) This matter should be expunged from the claimant's record
and the claimant should be compensated for any wage loss
he has suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant D. L. Ruby was employed as a trackman by Carrier.
Claimant was notified by letter to appear for a trial in connection
with the following charge:
"Violation of Agreement by and between the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation and the Employees represented by
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, dated October
26, 1976, Paragraph 2." When you were absent from work
without permission on the following dates:
July, 1988 - 26
August, 1988 - 2, 9, 10
The trial was held on January 9 and January 24, 1989, and as a result
Claimant was assessed discipline of ten (10) working days suspension.
The Organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf
challenging his discipline.
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the evidence and testimony in
this case and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record
to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of unauthorized
absence on the dates in question. Although the Claimant initially
maintained that he was absent from work on the days in order to drive
9 BC~
lit)
his wife to the hospital, and the hearing was recessed to allow him to
document that, he subsequently admitted that that was not the case and
he could not remember the reason for his absences on those dates.
Therefore, without any sufficient explanation, it is clear that he was
guilty of unauthorized absence on the dates in question.
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 the
carrier's action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
In the case at hand, the discipline of the Claimant is governed
by the Unauthorized Absenteeism Agreement which calls for a ten (10)
days suspension for a second offense. Although the Claimant has
stated that he did not receive the earlier written warning, there was
testimony from a supervisor that he had hand delivered the written
warning to the Claimant on June 30, 1988. Since this was a second
offense, the Carrier acted within its rights when it issued the
Claimant a ten day suspension.
Award:
Claim denied.
~ V ~
Chairman, Neutr 1 Member
~~w ~- ~
60
Carrier Membef Employee Member
Date:
4a~
ctD