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. 0. (Electricians)
contrary, the discipline imposed upon the claimant, after a proper investigation, was fully warranted.
Finally the carrier submits that if your Honorable Board should rule, contrary to the overwhelming evidence set forth in considerable detail above, that the claimant is not guilty of the offense with which charged and that he should receive some compensation, the amount claimed by the employes in their statement of claim is in excess of that provided for in the applicable rule of the schedule agreement. In this respect, attention is invited to rule 7-A-1(d), quoted below for ready reference:
Thus, if your Honorable Board should find that the claimant is due some compensation, and this the carrier denies, rule 7-A-1(d) clearly provides that he shall be compensated for his net wage loss, if any, resulting from being held out of service. It can readily be seen that a claim for compensation for "all time lost," qualifying time for vacation and insurance, etc., is clearly contrary to the express terms of the applicable agreement. The carrier submits that at most the claimant would be entitled to the difference between the amount he earned while out of service or while otherwise employed and the amount he would have earned on the basis of his assigned working hours actually lost during the period.
In summary, the carrier asserts that this claim is not properly before your Board since the claim under consideration has not been presented on the property. Furthermore, by appealing for leniency, the claimant, in fact, admitted his guilt of the offense and the extension of leniency is solely the prerogative of the carrier. The carrier asserts that clear and conclusive evidence has been advanced in the trial record Io support the charge. The carrier's action in disciplining the claimant was in no way arbitrary, malicious or in bad faith and tire measure of discipline assessed was commensurate with the offense committed.
Therefore, in view of all of the foregoing, the board is respectfully requested to dismiss or deny the employes' appeal and claim in this matter.
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.
This is a disciplinary case wherein after an investigation by the Carrier, Claimant was dismissed from the service. A review of the record before us, shows conclusively that the claim was originally submitted to the Carrier and handled subsequently through the appropriate channels on the basis of a request for leniency. The claim now before us is at fatal variance with that handled on the property. We are left Nvith no alternative but to dismiss this claim since it is in clear violation of Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. Ample precedent for such a dismissal has been cited by the Carrier and need not be cited here. Claim dismissed.