orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6620
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
65'11
2-BN-EW-'74
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David Dolnick
when award
was rendered.
(. System Federation No. 7, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
(
( Burlington Northern Inc.
Dispute: Claim of Employes: .
1. That$ in violation of the current agreement, Electrician Helper 'J. T.
Pittman was unjustly dealt with when on date of February
9,
1972, the
Carrier assessed a five
(5)
day disciplinary suspension from the service
of the Carrier.
That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to make the Claimant whole,
compensate him for all lost time.as a result of the unjust suspension,
and the record of the suspension be removed*from his personal record.
Findings:
. -a
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 Labor Act as approved June 21,
1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the disc ute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was charged with being absent from his assigned duties at 7.1:00 A.M.
on Monday, December 20, 1971. After investigation, he was suspended for five (5)
days without pay.
Claimant was assigned to work in the Diesel Shop. The District Master
Mechanic in charge of the Mechanical Department, including the Diesel Shop, testified
that at about
10:30
A.M,., on Monday, December 20, 1971, he walked past the Pipe Fitter
Shop and "noticed four people in this shop". He returned at 11:00 A.M. and "there
were still four people in this shop". At that time he went into the shop and found
two pipefitters who belonged there, this Claimant and a Mr. Stewart. The latter two
were ordered to return to their respective jobs which they did. At no time did the
District Master Mechanic identify the men he saw at 10:30 A.M. He gave no evidence
-tentifying this Claimant and Stewart as two of the four men he saw at 10:30 A.M.
_e
Form 1
`age 2
Award No. 6620
Docket No.
6`ill
2-BN-EW-' 74'
Claimant testified that he was in the Pipe Shop to get a tool, that; it
was a common practice for employes in the Diesel Shop to borrow tools necessary for
his work and that he never understood that he required permission from his immediate
supervisor to go to the Pipe Shop to get a tool. He also testified that he was not
in the Pipe Shop at 10:30 A.M, and that he was working on his job assignment at the
time. Never before had he gotton permission to go to Pipe Shop for a tool. It was
taken for granted that he could do so.
Carrier has not met the burden of proof. It has not been established by
substantial evidence that the Claimant was absent from his job assignment from 10:30
A.M. to 11:00 A.M.., or any other unreasonable time, on December 20, 1971. He was in
the Pipe Shop for a purpose. He was on duty. He violated no rule.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
15th day of January, 19'/4.