NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SECOND DIVISION

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

addition Referee John J. McGovern when award was rendered.

SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 30, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'

DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)

THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY

DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:

1. That The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company unjustly suspended Telephone Maintainer John E. Teagle from the service of the Carrier from F·obruary 19, 1970 until March 17, 1970, pending disposition of the hearing proceedings, after which, on March 17, 1970 he was formally notified and dismissed from the service of the Carrier.

2. That accordingly, The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company be ordered to compensate Telephone Maintainer John E. Teagle for all wage losses continuous from date of dismissal, March 17, 1970, reinstated to the service of the Carrier with seniority rights unimpaired, made whole with respect to his vacation rights, hospitalization, medical-surgical care and group life insurance, removal of any and all notations which may appear on the service record of the claimant resulting from this alleged charge and dismissal. In addition thereto, we submit claim for 6% interest per annum, compounded annually on the anniversary date of the instant claim.

"If it is found that an employe has been unjustly suspended or dismissed from the service, such employe shall be reinstated with seniority rights unimpaired, and compensated for his net wage loss, if any, resulting from said suspension or dismissal."

Carrier also wishes to point out that the claim as made requests far in excess of what is contemplated by the rule. Carrier's comments in this respect are not in anyway intended to detract from its position as set forth above but merely mentioned for the record.

FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustm·ant Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involvad in this -dispute are respetcively 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 h·~rein.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

This is a disciplinary case in which claimant leas charged with (a) having in his possession a vehicle of the Carrier without proper authorization; (b) removing same vehicle from Carrier's property for other than company business in violation of his supervisor's instructions; (c) using said vehicle to transport other than Carrier's employ es on the date specified in violation of company instructions and (d) subjecting Carrier to payment of $26.50 to recover said v·hide, which had been impounded by the local police.

After having been properly charged, an investigation was held during which claimant was present, was represented by counsel of his own choosing, was given the opportunity to testify, present witnesses on has own behalf, cross examine hostile witnesses, face his accusers and given every right consistent with due process and our concept of a fair and equitable h-caring.

The evidence presented against the claimant in this case was overwheimingly against him, and the finding of guilty as charged was based on such evidence. In the absence of Carrier -cting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which they most assuredly did not do in this case, we are unable to sustain the position of the claimant. We will accordingly deny the claim.

AWARD

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of SECOND DIVISION