(Advance copy. The usual printed copies will be sent later.)

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST HOARD Award Bo. 65x6 i
SECOND DIVISION Docket loo. 6384-I
2-8&o- I- ' 73
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.

( Louis E. Foreman (Petitioner)

i

Parties to Dispute:

(

( Baltimore 8e Ohio Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Egloyes :

1. Mr. Foreman was not properly discharged for insubordination since the record clearly shows that he was 311 and within his rights to refuse an offered assignment.

The punishment assessed, discharge, was excessive, arbitrary and discriminatory, especially when compared to the short suspensions received by two other employees involved in the same incident.

3. Mr. Foreman was not afforded a fair hearing by the carrier, in t

that the person he allegedly disobeyed was a member of the

hearing Hoard.

I

k

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 j

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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing

thereon, l

E

E

Claimant was dismissed from service on March 22, 19'n., after

a hearing, on the charge of insubordination. On March 29, 1971, Claimant

appealed the dismissal by letter, which read in part:

"... I feel the case was based on bias, prejudice and

jealousy. The local chairman did not even speak up in'

defense of the men and I feel that an unbiased person

( should take his place for the new hearing that I request." I

I

I

i

Form 1 Award No. 6516
Page 2 Docket No. 6t- ~ -I
2_B&O_ f73

After the claim was declined by Carrier, by letter of J1me 21, 1971 the organization's ex parts submission to the Director of Labor Relations requested reinstatement and f1311 back pay inter alia. Carrier at the conference on the property argued that the claim on appeal was never handled with the initial officer and hence did not meet the provisions of Article Y of the applicable Agreement. Claimant argues that he should not be punished for the failure of the union to adequately process his claim and because his rights were relinquished by the union. The record does not support Claimant's contention, particularly since he specifically rejected representation by the Organization at the hearing.

It is clear from the record that the claim Petitioner is asserting before this Hoard was not handled on the property of the Carrier in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Agreement and as required by Section 3, First (i) of the.Railway Labor Act and Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Hoard. The Claim is therefore barred from consideration by this Division and will be dismissed.

AWARD

Claim dismissed.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJtfi3TM .' HOARD By Order of Second Division

Attest;,

Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of May,, 1973.