The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John J. McGovern when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 109, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0. (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Coach Cleaner Samuel King, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, entered the service of the Reading Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, Wednesday, July 16, 1969.
Saturday, September 13, 1969, Cariiar removed claimant from its service without the benefit of a hearing to develop the reasons .for doing so.
Under date of October 4, 1969, Local Chairman entered claim in protest of this violation of the provisions of the agreement.
This dispute was subsequently handled with all the officers of the Carrier, designated to handle such disputes, including the highest designated officer of the Carrier, all of whom have failed to make satisfactory adjustment.
The agreement effective January 16, 1940, as subsequently amended is controlling.
The title of Rule 35, "QUALIFYING" is indicative of the parties' intent. This title was specifically added to the rule when the parties revised the original 1940 agreement in 1951. Hence, Carrier submits that by practice and logical interpretation the claimant's new employment status of less than sixty days justified his dismissal without a hearing.
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.
On July 16, 1969, the claimant Nvas hired by the Carrier as a coach cleaner at the Reading Terminal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On September 6, 1969, a patrolman employed by the Carrier in observance of claimant's behavior, escorted him to the office of the Carrier's medical examiner, where, after a thorough examination, he was declared to be under the influence of intoxicating beverages. On September 8th, he was duly notified of his dismissal from service effective September 7, 1969.
The organization contends that Carrier violated the collective bargaining agreement, to wit, Rule 34 therein, which is the standard discipline rule affording an employe a fair and impartial trial before dismissal.
The Carrier denies that Rule 34 has any applicability to this case and contends that its action is in consonance with special Rule 35 captioned Qualifying, which reads as follows:
They contend that the principal purpose of this rule was to provide a sixty (60) day probationary period for new employes, that it has been the accepted application of Rules 34 and 35 that where an employe is disqualified under Rule 35, the provisions of Rule 34 do not apply, and further that the organization's contention that the claimant was entitled to a hearing is contrary to 31 years of practice on the property. They also rely on the original employment application which stated:
The title of Rule 35 "Qualifying" together with its contents and the original employment application, clearly demonstrate that claimant's status was that of a temporary employe. If he had been in the employ of the Carrier sixty days or more, his status would have been that of a permanent employe, thus affording him all the benefits, rights, etc., contained in the collective bargaining Agreement.
In accordance with the facts of the case, claimant was clearly incompetent; and dismissed in accordance with the specific provisions of Rule 35. We find no violation. We will deny the claim.