SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 97, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. OF L. (CARMEN)
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY (EASTERN LINES)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement Car Inspector Bennie B. Wold was:
2. That accordingly the carrier be ordered to reinstate this employe in the service with seniority unimpaired and with pay for all time lost subsequent to July 2, 1947.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Bennie B. Wold, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, entered the service of the carrier at Corwith, Illinois, as a car cleaner, February 11, 1931. He was subsequently assigned as carman helper, car repairer, car inspector and then as air brake inspector, on which ssignment he was working from 7:30 A. M. to 3:30 P. M., July 2, 1947.
Under date of June 11, 1947, the claimant was notified to appear for an investigation at 2 P.M. on June 13, 1947, and copy of said notification is submitted, identified as Exhibit A.
Investigation was conducted June 13, 1947, by Master Mechanic Price and a copy of the investigation record is submitted and identified as Exhibit B.
On July 2, 1947, the claimant was notified by Master Mechanic Price that he was removed from service at the close of his shift that day, and a copy of said notice is submitted and identified as Exhibit C.
This dispute has been handled in accordance with the provisions of the current agreement, effective August 1, 1945, with the highest designated carrier officer to whom such matters are subject to appeal, with the result that this officer has declined to adjust the dispute.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that consistent with the words "unjustly dealt with", as used in Rule 33 (a), the claimant was unjustly dealt with in accordance with the purpose and intent of "formal investigation" referred to in Rule 33 (d), when the master mechanic refused the
the Aurora and Elgin Railroad station from his home in order to take advantage of that railroad's means of transportation to Chicago. The investigation notes further indicate that this man had made his home at Wheaton, presumably in the same location, for a period of three years. The fact that he was able to report for work at the regular starting time during most of this period should be evidence that it was not impossible for him to report for work at the regular starting time, and that his failure to do so on so many occasions during the months of May and June, 1947, which he was apparently unwilling to adequately explain, carries with it the settled conviction that this man was not unjustly dismissed from the service.
The organization's claim for reparation on behalf of the claimant employe reads:
The carrier has shown that Mr. Wold, the claimant employe, was not unjustly denied the benefit of the testimony of two witnesses at the hearing held on June 13, 1947, and that the carrier has not unjustly dismissed this man from its service.
It is a well recognized fact that no organization can function efficiently without at least a measure of discipline.
The claimant employe had been shown every consideration and his immediate supervisors had been more lenient with him than the circumstances would seem to justify. He freely admitted his guilt. His representative did not deny his guilt.
The organization apparently seeks the reinstatement of this man with pay for all time lost because the employe was denied the privilege of calling in witnesses who were not on the carrier's property at the time request was made for their presence and who could not have refuted in any measure the charge brought against this man for failing to report for work at the regular starting time.
The carrier feeling that the dismissal of this man might bring him to realize his shortcomings, and having no wish to do more than maintain a satisfactory standard of discipline, offered to reinstate the claimant employe on a leniency basis, which the organization refused to accept.
In closing, the carrier wishes to reaffirm that the allegation of the organization that this man was unjustly dismissed from the service of the carrier is absolutely without foundation and is of the opinion that your Honorable Board can have no other recourse than to deny this claim in its entirety. Further, the instant dispute is clearly without merit or schedule support and must be denied.
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.
After a review of the record, and without prejudice to the position of either party in other or future cases, the Division holds that Car Inspector 1247-12 338