BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
Case No. 155
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 B&B Mechanic T. F. Schlosser for
alleged violation of Amtrak Engineering Absenteeism
Policy on October 17, 18, 21, 22, November 9 and 10,
1991 was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of the
Carrier's discretion and based on unproven charges.
(System File NEC-BMWE-SD-2997D).
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated to service with
seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record
cleared of the charge leveled against him, and he shall
be compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant T. F. Schlosser, a
B&B Mechanic
assigned to Gang
0222 headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, was dismissed from
service when he allegedly violated Amtrak Engineering Excessive
Absenteeism Policy. The Carrier contends that the Claimant was
allegedly absent on six days, October 17, 18, 21, 22, November 9
and 10, 1991, in less than a month. It further contends that
taking into consideration the Claimant's past disciplinary
record, the Carrier had just cause to dismiss the Claimant.
The parties being unable to resolve the issues, this matter
came before this Board.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this
. GB('-(
r53
case and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record
to support the finding that the Claimant is guilty of violating
the rules relating to excessive absenteeism. Therefore, the
Claim must be denied.
The Claimant's record reveals that the Claimant was absent
on six days, October 17, 18, 21, 22, and November 9 and 10, 1991,
in less than a one-month period. Under the Carrier's rules, that
certainly constitutes excessive absenteeism in that short period
of time.
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 unless we find its
action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
In the case at hand, the Claimant had previously been found
guilty of excessive absenteeism and has received previous
suspensions of 10 days, 30 days, as well as a number of letters
of warning. This Board has previously held that excessive
absenteeism is a serious offense warranting dismissal, especially
when there is a past record of similar offenses.
The record reveals that this Claimant has been given a
number of opportunities to improve his performance. However, he
has failed. This Board cannot find that the Carrier acted
unreasonably or arbitrarily when it finally terminated his
employment. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
. q8~ - (53
AWARD
Claim denied.
Neut Member
Carrier Member ·. Or~ nization Member'
Date:
S-oZ S-`T3
3
9
S