The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward F. Carter when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 122, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Electrician F. E. McKnight hereinafter referred to as the claimant was employed by the Pullman Company as an electrician at the New Orleans District on April 24, 1926, and has been in their service ever since.
Under date of August 23, 1954, the claimant was notified to appear for a hearing at 10:00 A. M., September 1, 1964. A copy of said notification appears in the hearing record, Page 1, identified as Exhibit A.
On September 30, 1954, E. J. Saucier, foreman, New Orleans District, notified the claimant that his record card would be assessed with a warning. A copy of this notification is hereby submitted and identified as Exhibit B.
On October 12, 1964, we appealed this decision of Mr. Saucier. A copy of this appeal is hereby submitted and identified as Fxhibit C.
On December 6, 1964, Mr. Dodds, appeal ofcer, The Pullman Company denied this appeal. A copy of this denial is hereby submitted 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 to whom such matters are subject to appeal, with the result that this officer declined to adjust this dispute.
The National Railroad Adjustment Board has consistently maintained that where the carrier has not acted arbitrarily, without just cause or in bad faith, the judgment of the Board in discipline cases will not be substituted for that of the carrier. In Second Division Award 1323, Docket No. 1256, the Board stated:
In this ex parte submission, The Pullman Company has shown that on June 26, 1954, Elertrician McKnight failed properly to make a weekly inspection of car SCHUYLKILL RIVER, with especial reference to Item 15. "Servicing Report", as a consequence of which it was necessary to use a substitute car. The record clearly establishes that if proper weekly inspection had been made Electrician McKnight would have noted the high mica condition on the commutator of car SCHUYLKILL RIVER. His failure to observe and report such a condition required the company to remove car SCHUYLKILL RIVER from service and to use a substitute iar. The company submits that management's action in imposing a "Warning" upon Electrician McKnight was justified. The organization's request that the "Warning" be removed from his record is without merit and should 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.
Claimant is an electrician employed in carrier's New Orleans District. On September 1, 1954, he was given an investigation on the charge that on June 26, 1954, he failed to make a proper weekly inspection of car Schuylkill River as a consequence of which it was necessary to use a substitute car. The record shows that claimant inspected the compressor motor on the car by looking through the openings in the hand hole cover and observed nothing unusual. 7t is shown that the mica was high on the commutator and that the commutator was burned to such an extent that it had to be shopped. The evidence shows that an inspection would not necessarily reveal the burned commutator but that it would reveal the worn copper segments of the armature and the high mica condition which made the motor compressor unfit for service. Item 15 of Carrier's Servicing Procedures provides:
The record shows that claimant inspected the compressor motor about 7:00 A. M. and that its defective condition was observed about 9:30 P. M. It is shown that compressor motor had been operating throughout the day. It is also shown that it required a matter of weeks or months for the defective condition to develop. We point out that the very purpose of inspections is to
Yrevent operating failures. Consequently, careless inspections are responsible or operating failures. We think a proper inspection would have revealed that the compressor motor was in such condition that mechanical failure could have been anticipated. We think the evidence vvas sufficient to sustain carrier's action in assessing claimant's record with a warning.