Award No. 6314 Docket No. 6192 2-CRI&P-MA-'72
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Joseph E. Cole when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 6, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0. (Machinists)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: An investigation was scheduled for September 2, 1970 in the office of the Master Mechanic, Kansas City, Kansas with Machinist R. E. Woodard as the accused employe because he had allegedly left his assigned work area at approximately 10:15 P. M. and had taken a shower, all in violation of company Rule "Q". On September 2, 1970, Machinist Woodard did not appear at the scheduled investigation. No testimony was taken at the scheduled investigation to substantiate the charges leveled at Machinist Woodard. Although scheduled for September 2, 19 70, the investigation was never completed. Machinist Woodard was dismissed from service on September ld, 1970.
Claim was filed in Machinist Woodard's behalf on November 10, 1970 and was subsequently progressed to the highest designated officer of the Carrier in accordance with the Agreement, but the Carrier has declined to make any satisfactory settlement tb.ereof. Copies of correspondence showing handling of this case on the property are attached and identified as Employes'
The Agreement effective October 16, 1948, Reprinted to Include Interpretations and Special Agreements to July 1, 1968 is controlling.
Eventually, on October 12, 1971, as shown in the correspondence, the General Chairman notified the Carrier that no response was forthcoming from Claimant. Thus, for nearly six months, Mr. Woodard was in possession of this offer. The Claimant neither chose to accept nor reject that offer, but totally ignored both the Carrier's tenure of the same and the organization's participation therein. For all practical purposes, this employe turned his back on his contested employment, and conducted himself as an individual who had resigned from the employ of this Carrier. It seems ludicrous that this Board would consider returning a man to a job in which he has indicated no interest by his actions and complete silence. Certainly, Mr. Woodard has effectively foreclosed his right to contest his employment before this Board. The Carrier submits that the Second Division would be engaging in a futile act to request reinstatement for a man who obviously does not wish to be employed, now or in the future, by this Carrier.
The Carrier submits that the Petitioning Organization has not substantiated that Claimant Woodard was deprived of procedural rights under Rule 34. Claimant was afforded an investigation which he chose to ignore. The Carrier acted properly by closing out the Claimant's record, an action that was concurred in by his authorized representatives. Therefore, the evidence of record upholds the Carrier's action in this case, and the Board should not disturb the discipline assessed.
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.
Our study of the evidence contained in this Docket fails to disclose any valid basis for the claim and it will be, therefore, denied.