The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Mortimer Stone when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 7, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Communication Lineman J. M. Courneya herein after referred to as the claimant, was employed by the Northern Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, on January 6, 1947, as a groundman, promoted to communication lineman on November 1, 1947, and held the position of communication lineman with headquarters at Auburn, Washington from February 11, 1958 until the date of his dismissal from the service of the carrier June 20, 195'8.
Under date of May 22, 1958, the claimant was notfiied to report to the office of the assistant superintendent of communications at Seattle, Washington at 10:00 A.M. May 26, 1958, for an investigation covering violations of the operating rules and general instructions.
The investigation was postponed at the request of the claimant until June 6, 1958.
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.
After formal investigation of eight charges of rule violation claimant was dismissed from service on findings: (1) that claimant had no regard for the safety of himself, other company personnel or equipment, and (2) that he had been insubordinate in failure to comply with authority in the submission of daily work reports and other items of correspondence.
As to the second finding, there was no denial of repeated failure by claimant to make out daily work reports as specified in the Instruction Manual as well as failure promptly to answer inquiries requesting immediate answer. The only tendered excuse was lack of time due to his work as communication lineman.
As to the first finding, the evidence as to the facts on which it was based was in many respects unsubstantial, as was the evidnece as to lack of knowledge to bar the running of the time limit rule.
On the record substantial penalty was justified but we think that permanent dismissal from service was excessive and arbitrary and that claimant should now be reinstated with seniority and vacation rights unimpaired but without pay for time lost.