Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)


                  ( Southern Pacific Transportation Company

                  ( (Pacific Lines)


    Dispute: Claim of Emploves:


          I. That under the current agreement Car Inspector Garfield Jellis, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, was unjustly deprived

    . of his service rights and compensation when he was improperly

          discharged from service under date of April 17, 1972, after

          twelve (12) years service_with the Carrier.


        2. That the Carrier be ordered to:


          (a) Restore the aforeeentioned Claimant to service with all service and seniority rights unimpaired,, and be ordered to

~`,~ compensate Claimant for all time lost retroactive to April 1,
 -- 1972, when he was removed from service pending hearing sad
          subsequently dismissed on April 17, 1972.


          (b) Grant to the Claimant all vacation rights.


        . (c) Assume and pay all premiums for hospital, surgical

        and medical benefits, including all costs for life insurance.


          (d) Pay into the Railroad Retirement Fund maximum amount that is required to be paid an active employs, for all tine he is held out of service.


    Findings:


    ?he Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidences firms that:


    The carrier or carriers and the employs or employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employs within the meaning of tote Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.


    This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


        Parties to acid dispute waived right of appearance at hearing

..:thereon.
 Forte 1 Award No. 6731
 Page 2 Docket No. 6461
                                          Z-SP(fL)-CM-'74


Testimony of Car Foreman is not refuted that be was unable to secure radio response from Claimant on April 1, 1972 when latter was on paid duty as car inspector. Nor is his testimony disputed that he then found Claimant asleep in the local yard man's shanty and that he was unable to arouse his from sleep in spite of shaking hint and attempting to lift him out of the seat by both shoulders. Foreman°s further testimony is that he then called Assistant Trainsaster and then both thereafter encountered Claimant in Car Foreman's shanty. He describes Claimant's eyes as glassy, speech incoherent and appearance "not good". .

 Assistant Trainmaater°a testimony ia.that in this same encounter he observed Claimant's eyes to be glassy, speech slurred and to emit a henry swell of "intoxicants". Both witnesses testify that Assistant Trainenster asked Claimant how long it had been since he had had a drink; he responded that he had h=d a drink of wine with his wife about four hours age.

 Both witnesses testified that Claimant was instructed to wait in the Carmen's shanty; he was later found in the Switchmen's register room changing his clothes and was again requested to remain there so that he could be escorted,off the property; he agreed to wait but disappeared soon hereafter.

 In his own testimony, Claimant admitted being asleep but denied that he was under the-influence of intoxicants. He denied also stating that he had drunk wine prior to casing on duty. He further stated that he had gone to the Switchmen°s shanty because he had become ill and that he left after being asked to stay because he had in the meantime (while in the Foreman's office) informed the Car Foreman that be was risk and asked permission to go hose.

 Claimant presented witnesses an his behalf as follows: Car Inspector who stated that he worked ease tear as Claimant on date in question, saw Claimant just before batter went on duty and he seemed to be normal to him in all respects "but he looked a little bit he could have been sick"*% another Car Inspector who said he saw Claimant about an hear sad one-half before the incident took place, stood about 12 caches fray his, and welled no intoxicating liquor; a Carman who stated that he worked with Claimant for s abort period :t the beginning of their shift and stated that he appeared and acted morsel in all respects except that when they encountered each other, at one point, Claimant stated that he was "sick 'at his stomach" and would have to go hose.

 In spite of the partially countervailing testimony presented as behalf of Claimant, the record indicates that Carrier acted on material and substantial probative grounds in concluding that evidence supported finding of Rule G. violation.
 Ferro 1 Pa ge 3

Award No. 6731

Docket No. 6461

2-SP(PL)-CM-t 74


Claimant's -long record of aatulee (12 years) is counter-balanced by nnrefuted record of previous adverse incidents and, on the whole record, Carrier acted within entitled discretion in applying the dismissal penalty.

 A WA R D
Claim denied.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Beard

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

8y Order of Second Division


    gy

    -~: ~seaiarie Bzasch - Administrative Assistant


~y~ Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of July, 1974.