The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 109, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: A. J. Ottaviano (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) entered the service January 16, 1948 as laborer, at Port Reading, New Jersey, was promoted to packer and alternately through reductions in force worked as laborer, low pressure heating attendant and car repairer helper, he was promoted to car repairer December 5, 1949, changed to car inspector January 18, 1950 at which position he worked until dismissed January 11, 1957.
On December 19, 1956, General Car Inspector H. O. Ludwig directed a letter to the claimant citing him for investigation at 2:00 P.M., Friday, December 21, 1956, on a charge of "improper inspection of 19 cars on Interchange track, Manville, New Jersey".
The hearing was postponed by mutual agreement and finally held Wednesday, January 4, 1957; copies of postponement and hearing submitted herewith and identified as Exhibits B and C.
Under date of January 11, 1957, general car inspector wrote the claimant advising him he was dismissed from the service of the carrier effective January 11, 1957.
The agreement effective January 16, 1940, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
which claimant was involved, was warranted and justified. The discipline was not assessed arbitrarily, capriciously or without just cause and your Board has previously held that where the carrier has not acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without just cause, the judgment of the Board would not be substituted for that of the carrier.
The carrier directs attention to dissent of carrier members to Award No. 1830 wherein it is stated in part:
That the carrier's judgment was sound in claimant's previous dismissal is amply supported by subsequent events. Here the same claimant, after being restored to service contrary to carrier's considered judgment, was again guilty of violating carrier's rules and instructions.
Under the facts and circumstances, it is the carrier's position that claimant was afforded a fair and impartial hearing in accordance with the requirements of Rule 34 (b) of the effective agreement and was found to be guilty of serious rule violations. The propriety of the discipline should not be questioned by the Board, as it was not assessed arbitrarily or without just cause. Carrier, therefore, requests that the claim as submitted to the Board be denied in its entirety.
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 testimony adduced at the investigation clearly shows that the claimant failed to fulfill his responsibility as a car inspector on December 13, 1956 in connection with his inspection of interchange cars and failed to inform his relief of work necessary thereon. Accordingly, he was properly found guilty of the charge and, in view of his prior record of discipline, dismissal was not too severe a penalty.