' BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
Case No. 138
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) - NORTHEAST
CORRIDOR
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
1. The dismissal of Maintenance of Way Repairman
F. E. Beinlich for alleged excessive absenteeism
was harsh, arbitrary, capricious, without just
cause, and in violation of the Agreement.
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated with seniority
and all other rights unimpaired, his record cleared
of the charge leveled against him, and be
compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant F. E. Beinlich was employed by the carrier as an
M/W repairman.
On April 12, 1990, the Carrier notified the Claimant to
appear for a formal investigation in connection with the
following charges:
violation of Amtrak Bear Complex excessive
absenteeism and General Rules of Conduct Rule O
which reads in part: Employees must report for duty
at the designated time and place and must attend to
their duties during assigned working hours.
Specifications: In that on the following days you
were absent in whole or in part: March 8, 1990;
March 19, 1990; and March 30, 1990. In view of
your past record this constitutes excessive
absenteeism.
After two postponements, the hearing took place on June 14,
1990. On June 22, 1990, the Carrier notified the Claimant that
he would be terminated effective effective June 25, 1990.
. . , . qgc~ - 138
The organization thereafter filed a claim on the Claimant's
behalf, challenging his dismissal. The Carrier subsequently
denied the claim.
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 excessive
absenteeism when he was absent on March 8, March 19, and March
30, 1990. This Board has held on numerous occasions in the past
that the Carrier is not unreasonable when it considers an
employee's being absent for three days within a thirty-day period
to be excessive absenteeism.
This Board rejects the organization's contention that since
the charges were not brought within thirty days after the initial
instance of absenteeism, that the Claimant was denied his
procedural rights. This Board has also held on numerous
occasions in the past that as. long as the hearing is held within
thirty days of the last date of the alleged excessive absenteeism
the Carrier has complied with the rules.
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 be unreasonable, arbitrary,. or capricious.
In the case at hand, the record reveals that the Claimant
had worked for the Carrier for approximately one year and eight
2
7 . ,,_r~.,-- r~.,,-m ~-rtM~S
^-T~s ; _^^^^.'.-.;a:^--.fin - ,, --·
.C7
~.,.-~·"- __a__-_..y._....~.._._..V..___~....
._.~...
.,. . _,. ,. ,~.. ,._ ,,.;~....5
::;:~;7;L~:~ ,. _ _.,1.
.\ ~:
.V..
,.._._ , . . , . ,...,_ ,. . .... . . ,.. . ..
. 9B
C,
-X38
months prior to the incident. In that short period of time, he
had received several letters of warnings relating to attendance
as well as a two-day suspension, a four-day suspension, and a
five-day suspension for excessive absenteeism. Since the Claimant
has been unable to bring his attendance into line,with the
Carrier requirements after all that discipline, this Board cannot
find that the action taken by the Carrier was unreasonable,
arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the claim will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
PETER R. YER
Neutral M er
(Ai J~cC. C~
Carrier Member O anization Member
Dated:
/- /s' `Ja-
3
.'T'^`S MH, P