The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Mortimer Stone when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 122, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (ELECTRICAL WORKERS)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement, Electrician R. M. Thornton, considers that he was unjustly treated when his record was assessed with three warnings.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to clear his record card of these warnings.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Electrician R. M. Thornton, hereinafter referred to as the claimant was employed by the Pullman Company as an electrician at the St. Louis District on September 14, 1944 and has been in their service ever since.
Under date of September 29, 1953, the claimant was notified to appear for a hearing at 9:30 A. M. October 2, 1953. A copy of said notification is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit A.
Hearing was started on October 2, 1953, recessed until October 22, 1953, and completed on this date. A copy of the hearing record is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit A.
On November 19, 1953, F. J. Hellweg, foreman, St. Louis, Missouri, notified the claimant that his record card would be assessed with three warnings. A copy of this notification is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit B.
On December 31, 1953, we appealed this decision of Mr. F. J. Hellweg. A copy of this appeal is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit C.
On February 17, 1954, Mr. Dodds, appeal officer, The Pullman Company denied this appeal. A copy of this denial is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit D.
This dispute has been handled in accordance with the provisions of the current agreement, effective July 1, 1948, with the highest designated officer
Each of the charges was found substantiated by the evidence and he was assessed with a "warning" with respect to each charge. Thereby it is cliamed that he was unjustly treated and that carrier should be ordered to clear his record of the charges.
As to Charge No. 1, claimant in substance admitted that he marked up a complete "M" inspection but says his other work called him away and he did not have time to complete it. He marked up an "M" inspection both on his servicing report and record of repairs card. Upon spot check afterward it was found among other things that one floor heat valve was stuck and that the pump motor circuit was improperly fused with 30 A fusetrons instead of 25 A as prescribed. If, as he testified, there were no 25 A in stock, he failed in his duty to report it.
As to Charge No. 2, claimant had written instruction to give the car a "W" inspection. He returned the car defect card showing "W" inspection, but turned in his servicing report showing "D" inspection together with three "W" items, and on his record of repairs card he failed to show what type of inspection had been made. He states as excuses that his foreman was primarily interested in finding out what had caused a cooling failure on the car, which he located; that the car was not due a "W" inspection, and that he did not have time to finish the inspection but failed so to report. If true, they do not excuse his failure to obey instructions nor account for such inconsistent reports, and carrier's business cannot be run with any success on such confusing records.
As to Charge No. 3, claimant reported a "D" inspection on his record of repairs card and servicing report, but the Assistant Foreman on inspecting the car before its departure found the filters overdue for exchanging and completely stopped up, and the cooling pilot relay not operating properly. Claimant's carelessness in making up his reports is evidenced by the fact that his servicing report was marked to show that he had inspected three items of equipment which the car did not have. There was evidence to the effect that ordinary "D" inspection might not have caught the defects found uncorrected, but there was substantial evidence to support finding that they should have been discovered. No prejudice or arbitrary action appears.