Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIROAD AD.1tISTNENT
BOARD Award No. 6739
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 643?
The Second Division consisted of the regular.members and in
addition Referee Nicholas H. Zumas when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 114 Railway Employer'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
Southern Pacific Transportation Compaq
Dispute: Claim of Employer:
1. That under the current agreement Car Inspector P. A.
Camorre hereinafter referred to as the Claimant., was
unjustly deprived of his service rights and compensation
when he was improperly discharged from service wader date
. of January 17, 192 after twenty-six (26) years service
with the Carrier.
2. That the Carrier be ordered to:
(a) Restore the aforementioned Claimant to service with
all service and seniority rights unimpaired., and be
compensated for all time lost retroactive to December
24j, 1971 when he was removed from service peeling hearing
sad subsequently dismissed on January 17.. 1972.
(b) Grant to the Claimant all vacation .rights.
(c) Assume ate. pay a71 premiums for Hospitals surgical
and medical benefits including all cost for life
insurance.
- (d) Pay into the Railroad Retirement fund the maximum
amount that is required to be paid an active employs
- for all time he is held
out of
service.
Findings:
The Second
Division of the Adjustment Board.. upon the whole record
and all the evidences finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employs or employee involved in
this dispute are respectively carrier and employs within the mewing
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.
Form 1 Award No. 6739
Page 2 Docket No. 6437
2-sPT(1'L)-CM-'74 "r'"
Claimant,
a Local Chairman, was dismissed from service after
investigation
and
hearing relative to a charge of violation of Rule
"G". At the time of his dismissal, Claimant had been in Carrier's
service for some 26 years. During this period Claimant had been
previously disciplined for minor infractions resulting in 90 demerits.
Claimant was
charged with
"allegedlry being under the influence of
intoxicants while on duty at Los Angeles,
December 24, 19'Tl, for which occurrence you are
charged with responsibility, which may involve
violation of Rule G of.-the General Rules and
Regulations."
The Organization contends that Carrier has failed to prove that
(1) Claimant
was
on duty, and (2) that he was under the influence of
intoxicants.
The hearing transcript of some
314
pages substantially supports
the charges made by Carrier. Numerous Carrier officials who were in
contact with Claimant on the claim date testified that Claimant was
intoxicated. Claimant
was
described as "not normal," "odor of
intoxicants on his person," "eyes appeared to be blood-shot, glassy,
sad
he
appeared to have difficulty in focusing his eyes," "speech was
thick and slurred and walk was unsteady," and that his clothing was
"disheveled".
Claimant presented fellox.employes who testified that in their
opinion Claimant was normal in every respect, and that there was
"nothing unusual nor say actions that were not proper".
The Board is satisfied that there was substantial evidence in
the record both as to Claimant's being on duty and his state of
intoxication to support Carrier's charge.
Despite the fact that the occurrence took place on fhristmas Eve
day,
Claim Is
misconduct constituted gust and reasonable grounds to
discipline Claimant. However, the Board. is persuaded that in view of
Claimant's virtually unstained employment record of 26
years, dismissal
from service
was
excessive Carrier, therefore, is ordered to
reinstate Claimant to ser ce with full seniority rights. But Clai.maat
shall not be entitled to compensated for time lost or vacation pay,
nor shall he be entitled to insurance premiums or payment into the
Railroad Retirement
puce..
y
Iwo