DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES.-Claim of Carman R. R. Woehl for compensation equal one hundred six days' pay at Carmen's rate 72c per hour, a net amount of $549.51 for time lost due to being discharged, effective November 4. 1933.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS.-Cayman Woehl was discharged from service November 4, 1933, and reinstated February 19, 1934.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES.-That Cayman Woehl was discharged from service by Missouri Pacific Railroad account of afiiliatuig with the B. R. C. of A. and not for cause as claimed by management, i. e., Carman Woeld was removed from service for violation of Rules 800 and 802.
We deny that Carman Woehl was found loafing in shanty the morning of November 4, 1933, as claimed by management. The facts in the case are that he went to inspectors' shanty to get o drink of water, also to replenish his supply of order cards; he was in the act of being his shoe laces when the foreman entered, and because there happened to be a newspaper opened in front of him the foreman assumed lie was reading it. Exhibit A seems to indicate very clearly the attitude and purpose of the foreman.
We contend that management failed to prove the charges; that it ryas discriminatory to decide the case on the foreman's tastirnouv zind not accord similar consideration to Cayman Woehl.
Exhibits B and C snake reference to Carman Woehl returning to service on a leniency basis. We contend that such an understanding is not a matter of "cord.
Therefore, in accordance with Rule 32 (e) of agreement, April 1, 19'2.9, in effect up to and including current agreement of November 1, 1934:
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS.-Mr. Woehl employed as car inspector Lesperance Street yard, St. Louis entered service September, 1922, and suspended November 4, 1933, account loafing (reading newspaper while on duty) in violation of transportation rule 802, reading
Subsequently refn.sed to report to foreman's o11i;-c for investigation, became insubordinate in his actions to the foreman and was clwred with violation of transportation Rule 800, reading:
Mr. Woehl was not unjustly suspended nor was he reinstated on a merit basis; Mr. Woehl was suspended for violating one of the company rules, viz.: loafing on duty; he was afforded formal investigation as required by our wage agreement rules with the employes at which he admitted reading a newspaper while on duty, which constituted loafing in violation of transportation rule 802. He was dismissed from the service and subsequently reinstated on a leniency basis, not on a merit basis. The general chairman's request that Mr. Woehl be compensated for wage loss was declined, there being no rule in our wage agreement that would sustain the employe's contention.
FINDINGS.-The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.There was voluminous evidence submitted in this case. The file is a substantial one filled with affidavits and counter affidavits, and sharp conflict of facts between the parties, upon which it will serve no good purpose to comment.
The employe involved in this dispute xvas one of a group taken out of service for alleged cause and later reinstated.
Ray R. Woehl was discharged for alleged loafing in car shanty and investigation conducted does not prove that he was guilty of this offense.
The Division, after giving consideration to all of the evidence submitted by both parties, finds that Woehl was unjustly dismissed.