Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No,
71+5
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7012
2-AT&SF-EW-'76
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Nicholas ;i. 7vtnas -W:.e~; award was rendered.,
( System Federation No.
97,
Railway Employes'
. ( Department., A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
(
( The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
(1) That the Carrier erred and violated 'the contractual rights of
.Mr. R. L. Brand when they removed him from service ap a result of
an investigation held
on
January
g, 1C?4.
(2) That, therefore, Mr. Brand~be restored to service with all rights,
privileges and"oenefits restored and that he lie compensated for
all lost time from December 10,
1973
to July 1,
197+.
Findings;
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carr~ers arid 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 dislyzte waived tight of appearance at hearir3g thereon.
The essential facts are not in dispute'. Claimant was charged with
violating Carrier Operating Rules on the night of December 10,
1973
in that
he was intoxicated, quarrelsome and vicious. At the hearing Claimant
admitted drinking but could remember very little else. Other testimony,
not refuted by Claimant, ~showed that he was intoxicated and attempted to
strike a Carrier official. On January 21,
1974
Claimant was discharged
from service.
A claim was filed on his behalf and processed to the General Manager.
In June
197+
the General chairman requested restoration of service on a
leniency basis. This was agreed to by the General Manager, and arrangements
were made to restore Claimant to his job as Crane Operator on July 1,
1874.
When Claimant returned to work he was advised that the Crane Operator's
position was not available. His General Chairman was gLdvised that a protest
had been made by the Machinist Craft that Claimant was a hazard to himself
and others as a Crane Operator. The Carrier's Superintendent offered to
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
71.y'~5
Docket No. 7012
2-AT&SF-EW-'
°T6
establish a new electrician's position t,,-.)r C
d
aimant or allow him to displace
the youngest electrician on the x°o,.°°te:r. `?'!~i~ ,"cneral Chairman agreed on the
condition that if this was not agree a"j1e °~:·:-ith Claimant, the matter would be
progressed to this-,Division. Claimant ref-used to return to service unless
he were allowed to return to his forr:aer _~osition as a Crane Operator.
Essentially the Organization contends that (1) the discipline imposed
was not warranted by the record, and ire any event, the discipline imposed
was too severe for an employe of 24 years of unblemished service.
The record is quite clear that the action taken by Carrier was warranted.
There was &mp1e evidence of rules violations that were not rebutted by
Claimant. With respect to the harshness of the discipline, it must be
remembered that Carrier agreed to return Claimant to service on a leniency
basis to a different position, warranted under the circumstances, and it
was Claimant who refused to return.
A
W
A
R
D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
s
OW F
emarie Brasch - A nistrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of October,
1976.