AWARDS 57 - DISMISSAL IS EXCESSIVE DISCIPLINE

Third Division Award No. 23556 (Dennis) 

"OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Andrew Nathan, a baggage checker in the Union Station, was dismissed from service for allegedly striking an unknown person. His dismissal was later reduced to a 57-day suspension. The reduction of penalty was a result of a hearing into the matter and Claimant's good past record. As a result of the hearings and discussion, Carrier reduced Claimant's penalty to time held out of service.

"This Board has reviewed the record of this case and has concluded that a 57-day suspension that happens to coincide with the amount of time held out of service is arbitrary and is too severe a penalty in the given situation. The Board thinks that Carrier could have made its point by assessing a far-less severe penalty than a 57-day suspension. It is of the opinion that a 30-day suspension from service would have been sufficient for Carrier to impress Claimant with the significance of his misbehavior. We therefore reduce the 57-day suspension to a 30-day suspension."

Second Division Award No. 8931 (Carter)

"On our review of the entire record, we conclude that discipline was warranted. However, permanent dismissal was excessive. The time that claimant has been out of service should constitute sufficient discipline. We will award that Claimant be restored to service with seniority unimpaired, but without any compensation for time lost while out of the service. Claimant should understand that the purpose of the Award is to give him one last chance to become a reliable and dependable employe of the Carrier, but that further major infractions on his part will result in the permanent termination of his service. He should understand that his work attendance record will be expected to improve."

Third Division Award No. 23527 (Carter)

"Without attempting to detail the evidence adduced at the investigation, suffice it to say that in the opinion of the Board there was substantial evidence to support the charge. The condition in which the claimant left the switches involved created a dangerous situation, and was in violation of the rules of Carrier. Severe discipline was warranted; however, the time that claimant has been out of service should constitute sufficient discipline.

"We will award that claimant be restored to service with seniority unimpaired, but without any compensation for time lost while out of the service. The claimant should understand, however, that the purpose of this Award is to give him one last chance to become a reliable and dependable employe of the Carrier, and that any further major infractions on his part, will result in the permanent termination of his services."

Third Division Award No. 23525 (Carter)

"The Board has carefully reviewed the entire record in the case. While we are convinced that claimant did not properly report his time, at the same time it is quite apparent that a loose practice has been permitted, which should be straightened out by the Carrier.

"While claimant deserved discipline, permanent dismissal was excessive. We will award that he be restored to the service with seniority unimpaired, but without any compensation for time lost while out of service."

Public Law Board No. 5902, Awd. 2, Case 2 (Peterson) (UTU/Norfolk Southern Ry)

"However, we believe this discipline should be short of his dismissal from all service in view of the Claimant's past record reflecting that in 25 years of service he has only been disciplined on two prior occasions, i.e., a letter of reprimand for excessive absenteeism in 1990, and a 15-day suspension on 1980 for sleeping while on duty. The Board will therefore direct that the Claimant be returned to service with seniority and other benefits unimpaired, but without payment for time lost."

Public Law Board No. 5902, Awd. 1, Case 1 (Peterson) (UTU/Norfolk Southern Ry)

"Although the Board finds just cause for the removal of the Claimant from a position of Yardmaster, we do not find the record to support his permanent termination from all service. We believe that the Claimant should be returned to service in his former position as a switchman."

Public Law Board No. 5902, Case 20 (Meyers) (UTU/Norfolk Southern Ry)

"Given the thirty-one and one-half years of seniority of this Claimant, plus the fact that there are some 'deals' that take place at the Harrisburg location, this Board must find that the action taken by the Carrier in terminating the Claimant was unreasonable and arbitrary. The Claimant did engage in activity for which he deserved discipline, but discharge was too severe under the circumstances."

Public Law Board No. 5902, Awd. 17, Case 17 (Peterson) (UTU/Norfolk Southern Ry)

"Notwithstanding the gravity of the offense and the fact that engagement in sexual conduct of the nature at issue may well call for imposition of the ultimate penalty of termination from service, the circumstances in this particular case are such that the Board finds the penalty of dismissal from all service to be harsh and unreasonable. We find that a more reasonable penalty would be a suspension from service in the amount of time that the Claimant will have been out of service to the date of implementation of this Board's award."

Public Law Board No. 6076, Awd. 20, Case 20 (Lynch) (UTU/CSX Trans.)

"It has long been held in this industry that discipline should be instructive rather than punitive. In this particular instance it appears that Carrier has imposed a maximum sentence for a first time offense."

Public Law Board No. 6632, Awd. 1, Case 1 (Lynch) (UTU/Kansas City Southern)

"This Board has had the opportunity to thoroughly review the transcript of hearing, together with all other documents submitted by the parties, and finds that sufficient evidence was produced to justify a finding that claimants were culpable; however, it is likewise our finding that the discipline assessed was excessive."

Public Law Board No. 4525, Awd. 1, Case 1 (Vernon) (UTU/Soo Line)

"Accordingly, a significant suspension would have been in order. If it were not for the Claimant's horrible past record we might have concluded that less than a 120-day suspension would be the appropriate penalty. However, given all the circumstances including his past record and the fact that the Claimant, a supervisor himself, should know better than to be uncooperative. We will uphold a 120 day suspension."

Public Law Board No. 4312, Awd. 1, Case 1 (Harris) (UTU/Metro North Commuter)

"Furthermore, at the presentation before this Board, the Carrier in a most forthright fashion indicated that another Public Law Board had reduced to fifteen days the penalty imposed on one of the engineers. This Board does not believe that it should in normal circumstances mitigate the penalty imposed by the Carrier; however, in view of the information furnished to this Board by the Carrier, this Board will reduce the time assessed against Claimant to fifteen (15) days."

Public Law Board No. 3640, Awd. 5, Case 5 (Peterson) RYA/Southern Railway)

"Accordingly, and in view of Claimant having had 38 years of unblemished service, we think it may be properly held that discipline assessed Claimant, i.e., a 60-day suspension, was harsh and unreasonable. In our opinion, a suspension of but 20 calendar days would have represented a more appropriate exercise of managerial discretion. It will be this Board's finding, therefore, that discipline be reduced to a 20 calendar day suspension and that Claimant be reimbursed for all time lost beyond such period of time."

Public Law Board No. 3337, Awd. 8, Case 8 (Sickles) (RYA/Consolidated Rail)

"However, based upon our review of the entire record, we question that the penalty assessed was appropriate. We are of the view that it was too severe. Accordingly, we will remove the disqualification and restriction from performing services as a Yardmaster on Amtrak property, and we will disallow the five (5) day suspension."

Public Law Board No. 2786, Awd. 7, Case 7 (Franden) (RYA/Consolidated Rail)

"The Carrier obviously realized that the penalty of dismissal for a ten minute tardiness was excessive discipline. However, absent a discipline record to support a more harsh punishment, a suspension of ten days for a ten minute tardiness is also excessive. The most this type of offense calls for in the absence of a discipline record to support more serious punishment would be a reprimand."

Public Law Board No. 2786, Awd. 8, Case 8 (Franden) (RYA/Consolidated Rail)

"We do however, question the discipline that was assessed in the instant matter. It is the general rule that discipline once assessed will not be disturbed if the finding of guilt is supported by evidence of probative value in the absence of the discipline being excessive."

Special Board of Adjustment No. 1044, Case 40 (Meyers) (UTU/Consolidated Rail)

"There is no evidence in the record of any previous disciplinary problems with respect to the Claimant. Consequently, given that lengthy seniority and the clean disciplinary record, this Board finds that the Carrier's action in terminating the Claimant was unreasonable and must be set aside."