The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Joseph M. McDonald when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 122, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Electrician F. A. Vitarelle, hereinafter referred to as the claimant was employed by the Pullman Co., hereinafter referred to as the carrier, as an electrician in the Pennsylvania Terminal District, Sunnyside Yards, on March 21, 1950 ands has remained continuously employed as such by carrier since that date.
Under date of March 3, 1961, carrier elected to notify claimant to appear for a hearing at 3:00 P.M. on March 13, 1961:
Hearing on the above charge was held as scheduled at 3:00 P.M. March 13, 1961.
On March 28, 1961, Carrier's General Foreman at Sunnyside Yards, R. Bucherati, directed a letter to the claimant advising
The company also wishes to direct the attention of the Board to the following awards of the Adjustment Board with regard to the evidence on which the carriers found employes guilty of charges placed against them: Third Division Awards 4840, 5401, 6105, 7214, 7215, 7217, 7218, 7657, 7774, 7775, 9455, and 10071.
CONCLUSION: In this ex parte submission the company has shown that on January 18, 1961, Electrician Vitarelle failed properly to inspect the amplidyne on car OLEANDER and make necessary repairs. Additionally, the company has shown that awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board support the company in this dispute.
The claim of the organization that the company unjustly treated Electrician Vitarelle in assessing a "Warning" on his service record is without merit and should be denied.
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.
Claimant herein seeks to have a warning notation removed from his service record.
The warning was assessed after a hearing held on March 31, 1961 on the charge that Claimant had failed to make a proper inspection and the necessary repairs of the amplidyne on car OLEANDER.
It would appear that the sole question to be determined is whether when management suggests a short cut in inspection procedures, an employe is to be held derelict if he does not follow the manual.
This question arises from the evidence and arguments before us consisting of these factors:
1) Claimant's testimony on Page 4 of the transcript of evidence, which is uncontradicted by any other evidence, where he stated:
2) The Carrier's answer to the alleged practice is that it is "unreasonable" to suppose that such instructions existed. (p. 2 of Carrier's rebuttal). 4295-7 38