The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 152, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Machinists)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Machinist J. F. Swander, hereinafter referred to as the claimant is employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, in the Juniata locomotive shops, heavy repair shops, which is a part of the Altoona Works.
On November 8, 1962, Machinist J. F. Swander was served a notice of trial by Foreman A. L. Morse, being charged with "oil not being applied to left #2 roller bearing journal box of #2 truck locomotive 5770-A", to be held Thursday, November 15, 1962, at 1:30 P.M., in the E&M-M&M Shop Office.
On November 28, 1962, Claimant J. F. Swander was served a notice of discipline whereby he was disciplined three (3) days' suspension, notifying him that the suspension would be served 10 days from the above date.
On November 28, 1962 Claimant Swander wrote Mr. W. L. Goetz, superintendent of personnel, advising him that he wished to appeal the decision of Mr. A. L. Morse, foreman.
On December 7, 1962, Mr. W. L. Goetz, superintendent of personnel wrote Swander and notified him that his appeal would be heard at 3:40 P.M. December 11, 1962, in the personnel office, 2nd Street, Juniata, Altoona, Pa.
On January 2,1963, Mr. W. L. Goetz, superintendent of personnel wrote Mr. J. F. Swander and stated that - "I have personally reviewed this matter with Superintendent W. H. Yarber and Foreman A. L. Morse, and it has been decided
In view of the fact that the employes have failed to show that the claimant's rights were prejudiced because the foreman made the charge and conducted the trial, their objection in this connection should be disregarded.
In summary, the carrier desires to emphasize that the employes' position in the joint submission must be characterized as nothing more than a series of irrelevant and immaterial comments, none of which lend any support to the proposition that the discipline should be set aside. On the other hand, the carrier has shown that in view of the clear evidence in the trial record, the claimant was obviously guilty of the offense for which he was charged and disciplined. The employes have not, and cannot, produce evidence to the contrary.
In view of all of the foregoing, the carrier respectfully requests your honorable board to deny the claim of the employes in this matter.
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.
The record shows that it is the duty of the wheel shop machinists to assemble the axles, wheels and boxes with covers, and for the truck section machinists then to mount the trucks on the wheel assemblies and apply lubricating oil to the boxes.
In this instance the wheel assembly came to the truck section without one of the box covers which are needed to confine the oil; Claimant therefore did not apply the oil to that box. The next day the cover was installed on the box by a wheel shop machinist, and although the truck remained in the truck section of the shop until the second day following, Claimant did not apply oil to the box.
After Claimant's work had been completed except for -the application of oil, the truck was removed from the jig and placed at another point, still in the truck section of the shop. The Employes state that this was not where the machinists regularly perform their work, but the Carrier states that "It was at this location that the truck repair machinists finished up their work." There is no claim or indication that after its removal from the jig the truck was placed beyond Claimant's reach. On the contrary, when asked why he did not check later to see whether the cover plate had been applied so that the oil could be inserted, Claimant did not say that it was not accessible, but only "I think when the cover plate was applied to the box, I should have been informed."
Claimant admits that it was his job as machinist truck repairman to apply the oil, but the complaint is made on his behalf that he is singled out unjustly because: (1) another machinist truck repairman was working with him and was equally responsible; (2) Claimant should have been told when the cover was installed; and (3) the lack of oil in the box should have been discovered by others so as to prevent damage. But (1) Claimant and the other repairmen were working separately on separate wheel assemblies, each being responsible for his own; (2)
the shortage of one cover on this wheel assembly, and the consequent lack of lubrication, should have alerted Claimant to the necessity for a further check,. since it was his admitted duty to apply the oil; and (3) the unfortunate fact that others did not discover Claimant's failure in his primary duty cannot excuse him.
The nature of the discipline administered indicates that all of the circumstances were taken into consideration; certainly it was not so severe as to appear excessive, unjust, arbitrary or unreasonable.
The majority has erred in their findings in Award 4746, particularly having, ignored or overlooked certain data and facts reflected in this record which, we believe, establishes managerial obligation and responsibility .
this was a reasonable opinion on the part of the claimant, particularly in view of the fact that the missing cover was not an ordinary cover, nor was it an ordinary occurrence to have such covers missing.
"* * * The special cover plate on this journal box is the only one of its kind on the locomotive because it houses the speed control equipment***" and further, on the same page, in pertinent part:
It is reasonable for a foreman to know the nature of work over which he has jurisdiction or supervision. Therefore, he knew that when the cover was applied the next step to follow would be to insert the oil. He also knew that the man on the second shift put the cover on because he instructed him to do so. He knew that the truck gang man on the day shift was unaware of these events or instructions. Therefore, this record reflects a lack of communication on the part of supervision to the employes who are subject to their orders and administrative decisions.
This is a mere statement of fact, not an admission of guilt or failure to perform in .accordance with his normal duties.
The record does not reflect, nor is it claimed by the carrier or the employes, that the primary duty of the claimant was that of filling journal boxes with lubrication. On the contrary, the record reflects that filling boxes with lubrication is just one duty incidental to the complete repair of these diesel trucks.
Based on the record and the pertinent points projected in the foregoing, it is clear that the carrier erred in their discipline of this claimant and it is just as clear that the majority erred in their judgment of the record as a whole and, therefore, we must dissent.