The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION N0. 91, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO. (Carmen)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement upgraded Helper (Carman) T. E. Brockman was unjustly dismissed from service on December 1, 1958, and
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to restore the aforementioned upgraded Helper to service with all seniority rights unimpaired and compensated additionally for all time lost subsequent to December 1, 1958.
EMPLOYES STATEMENT OF FACTS: Upgraded helper T. E. Brockman, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was first employed by the carrier at their DeCoursey, Kentucky shops on May 27, 1943 and worked in this capacity until promoted to a carman helper on March 8, 1944 and continuing until promoted on December 30, 1955 under the provisions of the June 1, 1953 agreement to perform the duties of a carman, he working in this capacity until his wrongful dismissal on December 1, 1958.
On November 7, 1958, the carrier's master mechanic wrote a letter to the claimant charging him with failing to work his assignment after accepting a call and showing up for work on October 29, 1958, alleging result in delays to switching cars and trains departing from DeCoursey, Kentucky and indicating that an investigation would be held in his office on November 17, 1958.
On November 17, 1958 an investigation of the charges was held as scheduled in the office of the master mechanic.
Under date of December 1, 1958, Discipline Bulletin No. 44 was placed on the bulletin boards at DeCoursey, Kentucky indicating a carman had been dismissed from service for failing to work his assignment after accepting a call and showing up for work, with note thereon that the discipline bulletin was in connection with the investigation of the clamant.
This dispute has been handled with the carrier up to and with the highest officer designated thereby to handle it, and who subsequently declined to adjust the dispute.
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 disputc, 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 a hearing claimant was discharged for failing to work his assignment after accepting a call and showing up for work. The claim is that he was unjustly dismissed from service.
Claimant was on a regular assignment as upgraded Carman Helper, but had signed up for overtime work under Rule 12 of the General Agreement, the Interpretation and Application of which read as follows:
The question is whether, on the record, the Carrier properly found that claimant had failed to work his assignment after accepting a call and showing up for work, or whether he had merely refused a call, and thus under the above interpretation and application of Rule 12, should only have been dropped to the bottom of the miscellaneous overtime board.
There is ample evidence to support the carrier's conclusions that claimant had accepted the call and had reported for work, but refused to perform it upon inquiring whether he would receive 8 hours pay and learning that only 7 hours pay would be given him for the remaining 52/3 hours of the shift. The circumstances support that evidence, and claimant's testimony to the contrary is in several respects inadequate and inconsistent.
It is well settled that where the record contains substantial evidence in support of the carrier's findings- and there is no showing of arbitrary action, 3 6 r 6-15 15