-°h
1 NATIOTIAL RAILROAD ADJMTiriENT BOARD Award Trio.
6537
SECOM DIVISION Docket I1o.
6?+_y6
2-FGE-CM- `73
The Second. Division consisted
of
the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
( Railway Employes' Department, AFL-CIO
Parties to Dispute : ( (Carrneny
(
( Fruit Growers Express Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the controlling agreement, the Carrier improperly held Lead
Carman , J. T. Stapleton out of service from October 2, 1971 through
October 14, 1971.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Lead Carman;,
J. T. Stapleton,, for all ti--ne lost during the aforesaid period and for
any other benefits due him under the-current agreement.
Findings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that
(0 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 A djustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
invo2red herein.
Parties to said dispute waived. right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was a leadman with responsibility for servicing and inspecting
loaded trailers, making inbound and outbound. train inspections or delegating this work
to employees under his supervision. Claimant was disciplined. by a ten day suspension
for failure to perform his duties properly, after an investigation. He was charged
as follows:
"... failure to perform your duties as leadman in that you failed to
notify General Foreman, D. J. Durkee, your immediate supervisor, that
there were two trailers under load, yet to be serviced and inspected
. for outbound movement on September 30, 1971 "
The record indicates that Claimant had been informed, shortly before leaving
work on September 30th, that the two trailers in question were not to be loaded out
that night. The General Foreman was given information about thirty minutes after
Claimant left work that the two trailers were in fact to move out that night. The
t%~-~,rd of investigation reveals that Claimant had made two visual inspections of the
t;;-trailers, but had not recorded these inspections in the "T
12"
book. Teztimony
further indicates that the normal prcceaure was to mare a temperature inspection and
record i-;; in the T
h
book at least once every twenty 'foar hours. There is a presumption
-_...~ 1 Award Iv o.
6'~
`?0
Docket No.
.6436
.ge 2 2-FGE-Chi-'
7:3
but no evidence, that Claimant had not
complied with
the twenty-four hour inspection
and recording practice: husvrever, he was not charged with this infraction. There is
no evidence in the record t:zat Claimant knew the trailers mere scheduled for outbcun3
movement on September 30th nor is there any evidence to indicate an obligation on the
part of the Claimant to notify the General Foreman that trailers were in need of
servicing or inspection. In short, the transcript of the investigation does nut contain
evidence in support of the charge.
It is clear and long established that in discipline cases the burden of proof
is on the Carrier and the investigation must demonstrate clearly that the employee is
guilty of the particular charge levelled against him. (See Third Division Awards
12252, 14120 and 15412 among others) In this case the Carrier has
failed
to
substantiate the guilt of Claimant, as charged.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIOML RAILROAD ADJUSTa.MNT BO:RD
By Order of Second Division
'-test: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment i;oard.
By. r44z~__
Ros rnarie Brasch - hdministrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November,
1973.
P
1~