BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Case No. 129
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Brotherhood that:
1. The ten (10) working day suspension of Claimant
Frank Boatwright on October 18, 1989, was
unwarranted.
2. The Carrier failed to administer and enforce
its excessive absenteeism policy in a uniform
manner. The Claimant was never warned ox counseled
in regards to violating said policy.
3. The Carrier wrongfully charged the Claimant
with violating its excessive absenteeism policy in
regards to the Claimant's overtime in that overtime
is not included in said policy.
4. The Claimant's record should be cleared and the
Claimant should be exonerated of the charge.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Frank Boatwright was employed by the carrier as a
trackman.
On September 19, 1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant to
appear for a formal investigation in connection with the
following charge:
Charge: You have been excessively absent, in that
you were absent in whole or in part on the
following dates, September 9, 13, and 15. These
days represent regular days and also overtime jobs
which you accepted.
The hearing took place on October 5, 1989. On October 18,
1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he had been found
C4s~
lag - Sdg 9g~
guilty of the charges against him and was being assessed
d iscl pline of a ten (l0) working day suspension. The Claimant
appealed his discipline on October 23, 1989, and the organization
followed with a claim on behalf of the Claimant on November 10,
1989.
The Organization contends that the Carrier failed to
administer and enforce its excessive absenteeism policy in a
uniform manner; that the Claimant was never warned or counseled
in regards to violating said policy; and that the Carrier
wrongfully charged the Claimant with, violating its excessive
absenteeism policy in regards to the claimant's overtime in that
overtime is not included in that policy.
On December 1, 1989, the Carrier reaffirmed its decision,
but reduced the discipline assessed the Claimant to a ten (10)
day suspension, instead of a ten (10) working day suspension.
The Carrier maintains that absence from work during an employee's
regular tour of duty or during an overtime assignment is
considered as being absent from work and that the Claimant was
guilty of violating the Carrier's excessive absenteeism policy.
The parties being unable to resolve the issues, this matter came
before this Board.
This Board has 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 being
absent in whole or in part on September 9, September 13, and
September 15, 1989. Those three absences constitute excessive
2
~asc
lo?~
-SSA 9&'~
absenteeism according to the policy of the Carrier and therefore,
the Claimant was properly found guilty of excessive absenteeism.
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 its action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious.
The Carrier's policy requires counseling, then a letter of
warning, and then a l0-day suspension for individuals who are in
the process of violating the excessive absenteeism policy. The
Claimant in this case had previously received counseling and a
letter-of warning. Therefore, it was appropriate for the Carrier
to issue the 10-day suspension to the Claimant for the latest
incident of excessive absenteeism.
AWARD
Claim denied.
u
PETER R. MEYERS
Neutral Me ber
W
Carrier Membe rganization Member
Date:
3