Form 7_ NTRI°IONAL RAILROA~TS.~TP·f'";T BOARD Award
NO.
69 7
2;
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
6676-1
2-PFE-I-'76
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert M. O'Brien when award was rendered.
Howard Egleston, Petitioner
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Pacific Fruit Express Comparj
Dispute: Claim of E.nuloves:
That the petitioner in the above entitled matter became ill
on February 2, 1972, and was under doctor's care and authorization to
be off of work until February 11, 1972. Petitioner was released to
return to work on February i4, 1972. On February 13, petitioner's
father died and petitioner was given from the 14th of February to the
25th of February due to the death of his father. On February 28 and
29,
petitioner was again ill and under a doctor's care. Petitioner
reported to his company. Petitioner took March 1 and March 2 off due
to personal business relating to the death of his father. On March
3,
1972, petiticner again advised respondent he would be off a few days
to attend to personal business and his mother who had become seriously
ill since the death of her husband. On i,,arch 9, 1972, petitioner
received a letter to appear for hearing at the superintendent's office
on March 15. At the hearing onMarch 15, respondent informed petitioner
that he could keep his job if he would sign an undated resignation slip
to be serve? upon him at the company's discretion. Petitioner refused
to sign said resignation slip.
The aforementioned dismissal was without just cause. Said action
by respondent was arbitrary and capricious and constituted abuse of
discretion, since petitioner's actions were consistent with the
collective bargaining agreement between The Pacific Fruit Company and
The Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America. This is to further
advise that petitioner will seek reinstatement for the unjustified
dismissal with full back pay and allowances..
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, find:; 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 Act as approved June 21,
1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 6974
Docket No. 6676-:
2-PFE-I-'76
It is clear from the record that the claim the Petitioner is attempting
to assert before this Board was nct handled on the property in accordance
with the provisions of the applicable collective bargaining Agreement and
as required by Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. Therefore,
the claim is barred from consideration by the Division and will be dismissed.
See, for example, Second Division Awards 6172, 6293, 6298 and 6436.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
I
By t.,
rie Brasch - Ad~ninistrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of December, 1975.