The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee D. Emmett Ferguson when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 29, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Carmen)
GULF, MOBILE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
(Southern Region)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman J. D. Cullom, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was employed by the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, on date of January 22, 1946 as carman apprentice. After serving the necessary time as apprentice, he was employed as carman as of July 27, 1950. He worked in that capacity up to June 9, 1957 when he was discharged from service of the carrier. His assignment at the time was 11:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M. in train yard.
On the night of June 9, 195 7, General Car Foreman Hubbell found the claimant asleep in the inspector's shanty alongside the train yard tracks. He immediately suspended claimant from service pending investigation which was held June 13, 1957 at which time claimant was notified that he was permanently discharged from service of the carrier.
Stenographic report was taken of the transcript of the invest`gation. Copy of this investigation report -,vas not furnished to the local committee until about 4:30 P. M. on August 9, 1957, 57 days after the investigation was held. Copy was furnished at this time only because claim for reinstatement
subsequent like offenses. The offense for which the claimant stands dismissed is the second of its kind in the year 1957, the first having been committed on January 16, of that year.
At about 1:30 A. M., January 16, General Car Foreman Hubbell found Claimant J. D. Cullom and another car inspector (Daily) asleep during their tour of duty while Helpers Smith and Shanrock were inspecting and oiling the cars of a banana train. They were orally reprimanded and warned against a repetition of such an offense, and this was recorded as a part of their personal records.
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.
This claim for reinstatement is based on the employes' position that the company neglected to provide the committee with a transcript of the investigation which was held four days after the offense. The carrier witness deposes that three copies of the transcript were delivered on the day following the investigation, and that when the committee denied receiving them, additional copies were provided.
It seems to appear that the delivery of June 14, may have been misplaced, but this fact if true, did not operate to deny the claimant the benefits, of the rule. The committee could have and did have the transcript upon request.
We note the absence of any transcript in the submission before us which leaves us with no facts upon which to make findings or decide whether there has been either compliance with or violation of the governing rules.
The majority states "We note the absence of any transcript in the sub mission before us which leaves us with no facts upon which to make findings or decide whether there has been either compliance or violation of the governing rules." The majority then denies the claim. If the majority felt that there were no facts the case should have been remanded as no just determination can be made without facts. The findings and award do not denote impartial cons"deration of the instant case.