BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
TO
DISPUTE: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) -
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
1. The Carrier has placed Mr. Hayes in a double jeopardy type
situation. when first he was charged with violating the
"excessive absenteeism policy" and subsequently the charge
was dropped. The Carrier gave no specific reasons why the
charge was dropped nor did it inform him that he would be
recharged.
2. The signature on Exhibit "G" is a forgery and therefore it
should not be included in the transcript.
3. Exhibit "E-2" dated September 11, 1988 indicates Claimant was
docked .08 of an hour. However, the docking was not
substantial enough to deduct this time from his pay. That
being the case, that date should be removed from the charge.
FINDINGS:
Claimant L. Hayes was employed as a trackman by Carrier.
Claimant was notified to appear for trial in connection with the
following charge:
"You have been excessively absent, in that you were absent in
whole, or in part on the following dates: September 1st,
7th, 11th, 22nd, 1988".
The trial was held on October 13, 1988, and as a result, Claimant
was assessed discipline of a ten day suspension. The Organization
thereafter filed a claim challenging Claimant's suspension.
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
because he was absent for his entire tours of duty on September 1,
September 7, and September 22, 1.988, and he was absent for part of his
qg)m-q°r
tour of duty on September 11, 1988. Those four occasions occurred
within a 30 day period and this Carrier considers three or more
absences within a 30 day period to constitute 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 claimant had
received a warning letter for excessive absenteeism in April of 1988.
He had also received two warning letters for the same offense in 1987.
The ten day suspension issued to the Claimant in this case is
consistent with the Carrier's absenteeism policy. 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.
R
Neutral Memlpef'
Carrier Member Or anization Member
Date:
2