NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Harry Abrahams when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 21, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
1. That under the terms of the controlling agreement, the Carrier unjustly dismissed Telephone Maintainer J. R. Parrish from
service on May 11, 1964.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to restore Telephone
Maintainer J. R. Parrish to service with his seniority rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost from May 11, 1964, until restored
to service, including all vacation rights, and all premiums paid on
his hospitalization and insurance benefits during the period he is
withheld from service.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Telephone Maintainer J. R.
Parrish, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was regularly employed by
the Southern Railway System, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, with a
seniority date of June 1, 1952. His headquarters were at Memphis, Tennessee,
with assigned territory from Memphis, Tennessee, to Iuka, Mississippi.
On January 20, 1964, claimant received the following letter:
"Memphis, Tenn.
January 20, 1964
Mr. James R. Parrish:
You are hereby notified that your service as telephone maintainer is terminated for failure to protect your assigned territory on
January 20, 1964.
Supervisor Communications
/s/ J. R. Parrish
Also see the following additional awards of the Fourth Division:
257 401 677 844 978 1102 1218
264 574 755 899 1008 1124 1241
337 622 796 901 1048 1152 1268
375 671 804 912 1081 1201 1270
The charge against Mr. Parrish and his dismissal having been sustained
by the evidence adduced at a fair and impartial hearing afforded him at his
request in accordance with the agreement, carrier acted in good faith without
bias or prejudice, in dismissing him. There is no evidence of arbitrary or capricious judgment on the part of the carrier. In making its decision in this case,
the board should follow the principles of the above quoted awards.
CONCLUSION:
Carrier has proven in the record before the Board that:
(a) Claim presented to the Board is not the claim presented
and handled on the property by the brotherhood. Furthermore, the
several claims presented and partially handled on the property by
the brotherhood were not presented and handled in the "usual manner" as required by the agreement in evidence, the Railway Labor
Act and the board's rules of procedure. Thus, claim on behalf of Mr.
Parrish is barred on several counts and should be dismissed by the
board for want of jurisdiction in line with its many prior awards.
(b) Mr. Parrish was afforded a fair and impartial hearing at
his request in accordance with rule 12 following his dismissal on
January 20, 1964. The charge against him and his dismissal were
fully sustained by the evidence adduced at the hearing. There is
clearly no basis under the agreement in evidence for the claim which
the brotherhood here attempts to assert on behalf of Mr. Parrish.
(c) There can be no showing that the dismissal of Parrish was
arbitrary or capricious or in bad faith. Carrier has shown in the
evidence of record that Mr. Parrish was not only disloyal and unfaithful as an employe, but he was dishonest as well. It has no place
in its service for such an employe. Furthermore, Carrier's action in
dismissing him is fully supported by the principles of awards of all
four divisions of the board.
(d) The board is without authority to substitute its judgment
for that of the carrier.
As the claim is barred the board has no alternative but to dismiss it for
want of jurisdiction.
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.
5055 26
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
On the basis of all the evidence, the Board finds that the claim herein
was legally barred and should be dismissed.
The Board finds that the Carrier in dismissing the claim was not arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious, discriminatory or unjust, and that under the
rules and the law, said claim was barred and that the said Board has no
jurisdiction to rule on it and therefore must dismiss said claim.
AWARD
As above set out, said claim is barred and is hereby dismissed for want
of jurisdiction.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of SECOND DIVISION
ATTEST: Charles C. McCarthy
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of March, 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
5055 27