l3EFORE SPECT,A.h1'0AR.D OF ADJUSTl\1E .T.?..8
Case,No"-3,32
S,TATEMENT OF,$:bAIM:
Claim challenging the Carrier's dismissal of Claimant Kevin Lowenadler
FINDI G.,$:
By notice dated May 22, 2018, the Claimant was directed to attend a formal investigation on, charges that the Claimant had violated the Carrier's Standards of Exc lle.nce pertaining to Attending to Duties, as well as Canier's National System
Attendance Policy, in connection with a1'eview of the Claimant's attendance record for the twelve"month period ending July 23> 2018, showing that Claimant had been absent eleven days during that period. The investigation was conducted, after a postponement,
on August 23, 2018, By letter dated August 29, 2018, the Claimant was notified that he
t
had been found guilty as charged, By separate letter dated August 29, 2018, the Claimant was notified that he was being dismissed from the Carrier's service. The Organization thereafter file a claim on the Claimant's behalf, challenging the Carrier's decision to discipline him. The Carrier denied the claim.
The Carrier contends that the instant claim should be denied in Hs entirety b0causl;} substantial evidence in the record supports the finding of guilt, because the Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial investigation1 because there is no merit 01ยท mitigating value
l
to the Orgnnization' s assertions> a11d because the discipline imposed is commensurate. with the seriousness of the proven offense. The Organization contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety because the Claimant supplied the Carrier with medical documentation accou,nting for three of the absences at issue, because these three abs<:;nces therefore should be considered excused and r moved from the Claimant,s attendance record, and because this would put the CJama.nt below the threshold of violating the Atten.dance Policy.
The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this r
Board.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, d we find that
there is sufficient evidence in the r cord to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of violating the Carrier's Attendance Policy when he was absent eleven days in a twelveMmonthperiod from December 7 2017, through July 23 2018. That number of absences in that twelve-month period clearly is excessive absenteeism under the Canier's
I
policy and definitely subjected the Claimant to disciplinary action,
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient ev.idencr, in the record to' support the gu lty finding, we next tum our attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its
actions to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. .
The Claimant's attendance 1-e+rd includes two written reprimands by Waiver Agreement and a ten-day suspe?Sion by Waiver Ag,:eement for excessive absenteeism. The Waiver Agreement was dated December 13, 2017, and carried with it a ten day
2
suspension1 five served and five deferred fo:t: on.e year, as well as a final warning conceming attendance if he was found guilty of any further violations within five years. 'The Claimant comm tted the most recent offense of eleven absences in twelve rnonfus while he was subject to that five-year final warning.
This Board cannot f.ind that the Canier acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it issued the discharge, to the Claimant for his most recent excessive absenteeism offense. Thereforn, th.is claim must be denied.
AWARD:
The claim is denied.
. YERS
ZATIONMEMBER
ll lt-z.-\
3