SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 87
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2127D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
FINDINGS:
Claimant J. McKinney was employed by Carrier at its Adams MW
base. On January 29, 1988, Claimant was notified to attend a hearing
in connection with the charges:
Alleged violation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Rules of Conduct Rule "F", which reads in part: "5. Employees must
not sleep on duty, and must not be so inattentive to their jobs as
to appear to be sleeping," in that, on January 26, 1988, at
approximately 11:20 A.M. you were observed assuming an attitude of
sleep in a trailer at the Adams M/W Base.
Alleged violation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Rules of Conduct Rule "0", which reads in part: "Employees must
. attend to their duties during assigned working hours.
Employees may not be absent from their assigned duties . . .
without the permission from their supervisor," in that, on January
26, 1988, you were observed to be away from your assigned work
location without permission at approximately 11:15 A.M.
The hearing took place on March 3 and April 18, 1988, and as a result,
Claimant was assessed a ten-day suspension, with an additional
fifteen-day suspension that was held in abeyance. The Organization
thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging the
discipline.
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 assuming an attitude of
sleep while on duty on the date in question. Therefore, the Carrier
had sufficient reason to issue discipline to the Claimant.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our
1
attention to the type of discipline imposed. Sleeping on the job has
been held to be a sufficient basis for discharge
cases. In this case, the Carrier only assessed
in many previous
the claimant a ten-day
suspension which activated a previous fifteen-day suspension that was
held in abeyance. This Board cannot find that the action taken by the
Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the
claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
Carr r ember
Neutral Member
tion Member