The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 76, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Machinists)
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: E. F. Swanda, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, at its diesel house shop in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Under date of May 7, 1960, District Master Mechanic A. W. Hallenberg directed a letter to the claimant advising him to appear in the locomotive department general office at 10:00 A. M. (DST) May 11, 1960 for formal investigation on a charge set forth in the letter, a copy of which is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit A. The formal investigation was held as scheduled and submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit B, is a copy of the hearing transcript.
Under date of May 13, 1960, a letter was directed to the claimant by District Master Mechanic A. W. Hallenberg, advising him he was dismissed from the service of the carrier effective May 13, 1960, a copy of which is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit C.
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.
DISSENT OF LABOR MEMBERS TO AWARD NOS. 4027, 4028, 4029,
4030, 4031
Neither Rule 34 (a) nor Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement requires an employe to appeal from a superior to subordinate official of the carrier.
The majority holding "The claim was not presented in accordance with Rule 34 (a) within the time limited by Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement * * *" and "Not being a valid claim it is not properly before us and must be dismissed," here is in error.
It is not logical or reasonable to insist that an employe perform a vain, idle and absurd act of appealing downward from the decision of the District Master Mechanic to the Roundhouse Foreman and assume the subordinate foreman can determine an appeal of his superior.
Therefore we dissent from the majority decision in Awards No. 4027, 4028, 4029, 4030, 4031.
REFEREE'S REPLY TO LABOR MEMBERS DISSENT ON
AWARDS 4027 - 4031
This referee heartily concurs in the statement that it is not logical or reasonable to require an employe to file a grievance with his immediate supervisor instead of appealing a discipline decision directly to the next successive higher officers. Many agreements prescribe such procedure in discipline cases, and the referee believes that the parties could properly adopt it here. But he cannot find any authority for this Board's adopting that procedure for them, under the guise of "interpreting" the present Agreement as so providing.