SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 150, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On March 20, 1969, Eugene Hinton, Mechanical Maintainer, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was involved in a parking lot incident with one Robert Mitchell, Mail Sorter, both men being employes of the Cincinnati Union Terminal Company, hereinafter referred to as either the carrier or CUT.
Investigations were held March 31, 1969 on Robert Mitchell and the scheduled hearing of April 8, 1969 on Eugene Hinton was postponed until April 15, 1969 at the request of the then General Chairman F. E. Beyer, which notice reads as follows:
jeopardize the lives and property of all the Cincinnati Union Terminal employes.
After hearing all the evidence the hearing officer found Mr. Hinton guilty as charged. After he was found guilty his service record was considered in determining the amount of discipline to be assessed, and in the opinion of the= hearing officer, these factors justified his dismissal. When the claim was appealed to the manager's office, the record of the hearing, Mr. Hinton's complete record, and the matters contained in the appeal letter were carefully considered and no basis was found which would warrant changing the decision of the hearing officer.
Considering the foregoing discussion and the record on which it is based, carrier believes the record shows claimant was dismissed on proven charges after a fair and impartial hearing which complied in every respect with the efective agreement. Under similar circumstances the National Railroad Adjustment. Board has denied the request of the employes, and this carrier respectfully requests this board to follow a long line of precedent Awards. The National Railroad Adjustment Board has developed certain principles in a long series of Awards on discipline cases. These principles are enumerated at length in Third Division Award No. 8431.
The record clearly reveals that Mr. Hinton, by his own admissions and the corroborating testimony of several witnesses, was guilty as charged. Carrier has grave responsibility by firm and decisive discipline to prevent the utter chaos that would result by an evasion of this obligation. Cincinnati Union Terminal employes are entitled to enter the Carrier's property to perform their duties without threat of bodily harm or deliberate damage to their personal property. Carrier action in this case was nothing more than proper administration fully within the rules of the agreement designed to protect all the employes. Based on the record and what has been said heretofore, carrier respectfully requests this board deny the claim in its entirety.
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 Carrier charged the Claimant with conduct unbecoming an employe of the Carrier in that he engaged in a dispute with another employe on March 20, 1969, in the Carrier's parking lot, in which he threatened by word and action to back his vehicle into the other employe's car.
Testimony at the hearing held on the property shows that the incident began when the Claimant noticed near the end of his shift that another car
was blocking his in the overcrowded parking lot. This was the first time he had been blocked in by that car. He learned from other employes that the car belonged to Mr. Mitchell. A call was broadcast for Mr. Mitchell to move his car. When he came out and was walking toward his car, Claimant told him that if he blocked him in again, Claimant would back into his car. Mr. Mitchell replied that if he did, one of them would be a dead man. Claimant repeated his threat, and Mr. Mitchell said, "There it is. Go ahead." Claimant entered his car and started to back up, but stopped before hitting the other car, which was then moved out of the way by Mr. Mitchell.
The Organization contends that the Claimant was merely trying to correct an undesirable parking condition by a meaningless threat and that the penalty of discharge was excessive in view of his long and satisfactory service record. The Carrier contends that the Claimant was admittedly guilty as charged and that its decision to dismiss him was not unjust, unreasonable, or arbitrary in view of Carrier's responsibility to protect its employes from damage to their personal propery while at work and to prevent any increase in racial tensions.
A careful study of the hearing transcript leads us to the conclusion that what would otherwise have been a simple inconvenience became a potentially explosive situation, due to the provocation of Claimant's threats.
The Board finds that the Carrier's decision that Claimant was guilty as charged is supported by the record and that the penalty assessed was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The discharge is therefore sustained.