Award No. 5428 Docket No. 5286 2-SOU-CM= 68
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Joseph S. Kane when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 21, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman R. H. Bedwell, Knoxville, Tennessee, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, was employed by Southern Railway Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, at Coster Shop, Knoxville, Tennessee and was removed from service August 13, 1965 through August 27, 1965, charged with failing to discharge his duties in that, while he had been assigned by his supervisor to go to a scrap classification field to bring in some air brake equipment, he was instead inside the Fabrication Shop conversing with another employe. Copy attached and marked Exhibit A.
Formal investigation was held August 17, 1965, copy attached and marked Exhibit B.
The trial officer designated by the Carrier was Mr. 0. A. Kitts, Assistant Manager, Coster Shop.
In a letter dated August 20, 1965, the Claimant was advised by Mr. Kitts, Assistant Manager of Coster Shop, that he was found guilty as charged and suspended from service without pay beginning August 13, 1965, and ending at midnight August 27, 1965. Copy of letter attached and marked Exhibit C.
This dispute has been handled with the Carrier's officers designated to handle such matters, in compliance with the current Agreement, all of whom have refused or declined to make satisfactory settlement.
Carrier not having -seen the Brotherhood's submission reserves the right after doing so to make response thereto and submit any other evidence necessary for the protection of its interests.
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.
The Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The Shop Manager observed two employes in the fabrication shop engages in conversation. The claimant admitted he was discussing union business with E fellow worker although he did not have permission from his superior to engagf in such conversation. The time consumed in the conversation is in dispute, th< Carrier contending three minutes while the Claimant said it was one minute It was not disputed that the conversation took place in an area other that the work area of the claimant.
The claimant was charged with failing to discharge his duties from whic: the claimant appeals. The penalty was suspension from service without pa, from August 13, 1965 and ending Midnight August 27, 1965, a total of 1 days.
Upon an examination of the entire record the Board finds that tb claimant was having a discussion with a fellow worker without the permissio of his superiors. That the claimant was not in his work area while so engage However, the infraction is a minor one and the penalty is excessive ar arbitrary.
Thus the Board is of the opinion that one day out of service is an adequa penalty.