SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 42, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Machinists)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: That the discipline assessed against Mallie Long, machinist helper, effective May 9, 1951, was improperly arrived at and represents unjust treatment within the meaning of Rule 21, third paragraph, of the controlling agreement.
That the carrier accordingly be ordered to compensate Helper Mallie Long at his established rate of pay for loss of wages resulting from the aforesaid suspension from work for a period of three days.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Investigation accorded Mallie Long, the claimant, April 16, 1951, discloses that he then held a shift assignment as box packer in engine house at Tampa, Florida, with approximately twenty-nine years' experience as such.
The discipline notice dated May 7, 1951, states that three days' actual suspension from work was assessed against the claimant for those reasons set forth therein as follows:
Notice of investigation dated April 13, 1951, discloses that the claimant was not charged with violating Rule 32(b), and that he and his representative were thus relieved of defending against any charge properly lodged within the meaning of Rule 21 of the controlling agreement.
The controlling agreement is dated November 11, 1940, and contains revisions and supplements effective as shown in reprinted edition of March, 1950.
An examination of the record in this case-in the light of this rulefails to reflect any unjust treatment of Helper Long by carrier. In the case here at issue all requirements of the hearing rule (Rule 21) have been scrupulously observed. Claimant Long was duly notified of the investigation to be held, he appeared at the investigation with representative of his choice and he declared he desired no witnesses present. He and his representative stated the investigation had been fairly conducted-in fact, Claimant Long statd "Absolutely (satisfactory). I appreciate it." Claimant, therefore, was afforded "due process" in the conduct of the investigation. All the requirements of the hearing rule have been met.
Carrier has the prerogative to expect absolute loyalty and full cooperation from its employes, and the organization, by rule of the agreement, is in accord with this. promise. When an employe fails to perform, the interests of the carrier are jeopardized and the public interest is not served. An employe who fails to fulfill this fundamental obligation to his employer subjects himself to disciplinary action. Claimant has a long record of failure to properly pack engine boxes, and he knew on April 11, 1951, as he does today, the importance of properly performing these duties. When Helper Long failed to properly perform his duties on April 11, 1951, it was within carrier's province to assess discipline for such failure. It is carrier's contention that the discipline assessed Claimant Long was neither harsh nor excessive, in view of the seriousness of his failure to perform his duties, and requests your Board to so find.
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.
Claimant was suspended for three days on the charge of violating Rule 32(b). It is the contention of the Organization that carrier failed to comply with that part of Rule 21, current agreement, providing:
The purported charge lodged against the claimant, insofar as it is pertinent here, is as follows:
The position of the Organization is correct. The foregoing not only does not state a precise charge but it does not purport to state any charge of rule violation at all. " If the claimant admitted every statement in the purported charge to be true, he would not thereby admit any rule violation or wrong doing on his part. Such a statement is not in accordance with the requirements of the quoted portion of Rule 21. 1598-7 43