The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David Dolnick when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 66, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Electrician Lineman Glen Fortney, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, was employed by the former Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company, now the M&St. L. Division of the Chicago and North Western Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, May 16, 1932, and at the time of dismissal from service had thirty-three (33) years of service. During said years of service, Claimant held many types of assignments and had been serving as an Electrician Lineman since June 27, 1947, to the complete satisfaction of all concerned until shortly before his dismissal.
Under date of July 28, 1965, Carrier directed the following letter to Claimant:
The claim for pay for time lost and pay for insurance premiums should be dismissed on the basis that this portion of the claim is barred by the time limit rule and by Section 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. The claim for reinstatement should be denied.
All information contained herein previously has been submitted to the employes during the course of the handling of this case on the property and is hereby made a part of the particular question here in dispute.
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 disputeinvolved herein.
The record of the investigation, held prior to Claimant's dismissal, establishes without any semblance of doubt that the said Claimant was guilty of the charges preferred against him in the letter of July 28, 1965. He filed false work reports, he failed to follow instructions to repair an unsafe pole, and. he continuously ignored verbal and written instructions to file daily work reports. A violation of any one of these justifies disciplinary action.
It is true that the Claimant had about 33 years of service with the Carrier. Generally, this should be considered in administering a justifiable
penalty. But that is so when an employe's work record, except for the single instance, has been satisfactory. That is not the case here.
On November 21, 1964, Claimant was reprimanded and instructed in writing to keep in touch with his headquarters and with the dispatcher before leaving his job to inquire if any wire trouble in his territory needed attention.
Less than a week later - November 27, 1964 - he was removed from service for failure to protect his territory on that day. An investigation was held on December 8, 1964. On December 18, 1964, Carrier's Communications Engineer wrote to Claimant, in part as follows:
Employes' principal argument is "that the discipline in the instant case was too severe." At no time on the property, did Employes ask that the Claimant be compensated for lost time while he was held out of service. In any event, this Board has no authority to reinstate Claimant solely on a request for leniency. On the basis of the entire record we are obliged to conclude that we have no right to challenge Carrier's judgment and change the penalty.