PUBLIC LAW BOARD 6324
AWARD NO. 75

Parties to Dispute: Union Pacific Railroad Co.
                           and
                    United Transportation Union

Statement of Claim: Request of Trainman F. Hernandez, Tucson Service Unit, for removal of first offense violation of attendance policy from personal record, payment for time lost, including vacation credits.

Findings: A review of the instant record indicates that the Carrier's calculations of

     Claimant's excused absences were inaccurate. Some legitimate excuses were ignored. Claimant was not absent without permission for the hours charged and was on duty for an average of over 40 hours per week. The Carrier has not established a violation of Rules 1.13 and 1.15. Based on all the reasons, this Board must sustain the claim.

Claim sustained.

March _{:tf , 2005 Fort Worth, Texas}

FRANCIS X. QUINN
Chair and Neutral Member

FRANK A. TAMISIEA
Carrier Member

J. KEVIN KLEIN
Employee Member

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CARRIER'S DISSENT TO AWARD NO. 75. PLB 6324

The facts established in the transcript does not support the Board's finding in this case. As the Carrier pointed out in executive session Claimant's work and lay off record does not support Claimant - - "was on duty for an average of over 40 hours per week. "--

Claimant's lay off & Work Records (Transcript Exhibits 4, 6 & 9) revealed Claimant laid off 40 days during the review period 11-01-03 & 01-31-04 (13 weeks or 92 days) as follows:

• Laid Off Sick (L/S)...........................34 days.

• Laid Off Personal (UP) (non-compensated).......3 days.

• Laid Off Illness In Family (L/K).............. 3 days.
                                                                                    Total 40 days out of 92 days

• Claimant's work & deadhead trips totaled 50 trips during the 13 week period, an average of 3.8 trips per week, averaging 33'12" per week. The average on duty time for each trip was 8'40". Claimant was off an average of 3.2 days per week. Thus, Claimant did not work an average of 5, 6, 7 days or 40 hours per week.

• Claimant averaged approximately 32'00" off duty time between trips.

• Claimant laid off 11 weekends out of 13 weekends. Establishing a pattern of laying off on weekends.

• Claimant laid off 6 Holidays, Thanksgiving Nov. 27 & 28, Christmas Dec. 24 & 25 and New Years Dec. 31 & Jan. 1. Establishing a pattern of laying off holidays.

Although Claimant was allowed to lay off on the days he called the Crew Dispatcher, this does not estoppe the Field Manager from questioning his excessive lay offs. The record is clear, Claimant failed to protect his employment, nor can he be considered as working full time based on the un-refuted fact he laid off 40 days out of 92. Neither Claimant or his Representative provided any evidence to justify Claimant's continued excessive absenteeism and patterned lay offs.

There was more than substantial evidence to establish Claimant was in violation of Rules 1.13, 1.15 and Carrier's Attendance Policy. As always, the Carrier requires its employees to come to work on the days they are scheduled to work and to protect their employment on a full time basis.

For all of the above reasons, Carrier dissents.

Frank A. Tamisiea
Director - Labor Relations
Union Pacific Railroad
1400 Douglas St., STOP 0710
Omaha, NE., 68179