Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJL3ST"ty7,1VT BOARD Award No. 7161
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. '030
2-SCL-CM-' 76




Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (C armen)



Dispute: Claim of Employes:





Findings:

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 Act as approved June 21, 193+.

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



After an investigation przrsuant to notice given Claimant "to develop the facts and place responsibility for your falsifying of your timecard", Claimant was given a 15-woxki:ng-day suspension. Claimant states the suspension should be lifted because the charges made against him were not specific; he was not charged with violating rules of the collective bargaining agreement but instead rules unilaterally imposed by the Carrier; he was judged guilty prior to hearing; he was in ai:~y event suspended prematurely in violation of Rule 32; and, finally, even if there were no procedural defects, the Carrier failed to prove wrongdoing on the part of the Claimant.

After full review, this _3oaxd finds the Claimant's arguments without merit.
Foam 1 Award No. 7161
Page 2 Docket No. 7030
2-SCL-CM-'76

Claimant was apprehended at the time clock on September 26, 197+, by M. H. Dudley, a Carrier Supervisor, and by Zv. I. Timms, a Carrier Special Agent. As a result of this even`, he w^.u= -i~·en a notice of hearing which read in its first paragraph as follow,:



The first paragraph of Rule 32 -- Disciplinary Hearings reads as follows:



This Board finds that the combination of the occurrence at the time clock and the wording of the hearing notice were sufficiently specific to make the Claimant fully aware of the nature of the charges and the content of the forthcoming hearing. While the hearing notice may have been more artfully worded, perhaps with the addition of the word "alleged" before "falsifying", the hearing was conducted in a full and impartial manner sufficient to bring forth the facts involved and the Claimant's defense.

The hearing notice further charged the Claim~ant '-th violation of "rules of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Rules and Regulations of the Mechanical Department". These rules axe not contained within the Agreement between the Carrier and the Organization. It is well established that a Carrier may promulgate rules for the conduct of employes that axe not included in the Agreement. See Award No. 1581 ('Daugherty) and Award No. 5987 (Dorsey). Referee Dorsey's Award reads in ;part:


Form 1 Page 3

Award No. 7161
Docket No. 7030
2-SCL-CM-'76

Rule 32, quoted above, provides the right of the Carrier to suspend an employe "in proper cases pending a hearing". Thus, the Claimant's argument that his suspension was premature is not valid.

As to the occurrence itself, this Board finds there was patent evidence upon which the Cax^ier could properly act in regard to the falsification of his time card by the.Claimant. Numerous past Awards support the view that this 3oard will not interfere with the resulting discipline, given certain basic conditions and proper procedural steps. As noted in Award No. 6525 (Franden):



A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


osemaxie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of October, 1976.