The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Harry Abrahams when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 97, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
(Coast Lines)
phatically asserts that the claim does not merit such a decision, nor does the employe even merit reinstatement, any allowance for wage loss should be less amounts earned in other employment, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 33%, paragraph (d), of the current shop crafts agreement, reading:
Attention in this connection is also directed to Second Division Awards 1638, 2653, and 2811, Third Division Awards 6074 and 6362, and Fourth Division Award 637.
Particular attention is further directed to Items 2(b), 2(c) and 2(d) of the employes' claim, reading:
It will be observed that Rule 331/2, paragraph (d), which is quoted in the preceding paragraph, provides that if the final decision shall be that an employe has been unjustly suspended or dismissed from the carrier's service, "such employe shall be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired, and compensated for the net wage loss, if any, resulting from said suspension or dismissal." (Emphasis ours.) Neither that rule nor any other rule of the shop crafts agreement contemplates or provides for restoration of vacation and hospital benefits, payment of all dues and premiums, or financial respon sibility for any loss sustained by the claimant, as requested in the items of the employes' claim quoted above. See in this connection Second Division Award No. 3883.
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 Claimant, C. M. Alexander, was a Diesel Electrician in Barstow Roundhouse from 3:00 P. M. to 11:00 P. M. The engine that came in, Unit 2694, had smoking traction motors.
On November 16, 1963 at about 7:30 P. M., the Claimant was instructed to inspect the traction motors. He was again instructed to inspect them at about 9:15 P. M. The Claimant was scheduled to go off duty at 11:00 P. M. However a few minutes after 10:00 P. M., the Electrical Foreman met the Claimant, who informed him that he was sick and was going home. The Claimant checked out at 10:19 P. M. after he refused to inspect the motors. He stated that he refused for safety reasons.
The employes have the burden to prove the case presented by them to the Board. The employes in this case did not prove their case.
The facts in this record show that all necessary safety precautions were made available to Claimant without avail and the record likewise leaves us unconvinced that the Claimant was sick as he contended.