Award No. 6077 Docket No. 5884 2-PCT(PRR)-MA= 70
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John J. McGovern when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 152, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Machinist)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The instant dispute arose at the carrier's Sunnyside Yard, New York, where Appellant Harry Piechocki was employed as a machinist, on the first trick, at the air brake shop.
On June 4, 1965, carrier notified appellant that he was being held out of service pending investigation, trial and decision in connection with his suspected involvement in an unauthorized activity incident to his possession of intoxicants while on duty at Sunnyside Yard on June 3, 1965.
On June 17, 1965, appellant was notified to appear for trial, to be held at 10:00 A. M., June 24, 1965, in connection with the following charges:
In view of all the foregoing, carrier submits that there is no proper basis on which. your board can reverse the carrier's action in this case. The claimant was afforded a fair trial, the finding of guilty is supported by substantial evidence, and the discipline imposed was not unreasonable in light of the serious nature of the charge. Accordingly, your honorable board is respectfully requested to deny the employ e-s' claim.
Without waiving its position as set forth above, the carrier asserts that if your board should find in favor of the cm-loye:s, which the carrier emphatically denies there is any reason for your board to do so, insofar as the monetary claim is concerned, which reads, "be required to compensate claimant for the time he was held out of service," the claimant would only be entitled to be compensated for the difference between the amount he earned while out of service or while otherwise employed, and the amount he would have earned had he not been held out of service. This is specifically provided for in rule 7-A-1(d) of the applicable agreement, reading:
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.
Claimant, following an investigation conducted by Carrier, was found guilty as charged. As a result of this investigation, he was dismissed from service and subsequently reinstated with his seniority rights unimpaired.
The claim before us alleges that he was unjustly suspended from June 4, 1965 until August 31, 1965, the period during which he was held out of service. The Organization demands that Carrier be required to compensate him for the period of suspension and that the discipline imposed be stricken from the record.
In examining the transcript of the investigation, we are convinced that the evidence presented was sufficiently substantial to warrant Carriers finding of guilty. We do not agree with the Organization that the charge lodged against claimant was vague. On the contrary it was clear and precise and could in no way prejudice the preparation of his defense. The evidence is conclusive of his guilt. Carrier did not act in an arbitrary and capricious