Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7322
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7022-I
2-PCT-I-'
77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBrearty when award was rendered.
( Earl C. Grow, Electrician
Parties to Dispute:
( Penn Central Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
(A) CHARGES AGAINST CARRIER
(1) That Carrier improperly suspended Electrician, Earl C. Grow on
January 24,
197+,
from services pending and subsequent to
investigation, and;
(2)
That on February 12,
1974
the Carrier unjustly dismissed Electrician,
Earl C. Grow from. service, and;
(3)
That at the trial of Earl C. Grow, Carrier denied Claimants rights
to make statements in his own behalf, and to call and examine
witnesses, due to the presence of a tape recorder at the proceedings,
the use of which is sanctioned by the Agreement nor by the past
practice.
(4)
That Claimant was denied his right to appeal from Notice of
Discipline as set forth in Rule
7-A-1
(a) of the applicable
Agreement by Penn Central Railroads failure to notify Claimant of
Notice of Discipline either orally or in writing.
(5)
Penn Central Rialroad falsified statements of notification of
dismissal of Earl C. Grow to his great detriment and loss.
(B) REMEDY SOUGHT
(1) That Penn Central Railroad be ordered to compensate Earl C. Grow
his applicable straight time rate of pay from January
24, 197+
to February 12,
197+
account improper suspension, and;
(2)
That Penn Central be ordered to compensate Electrician Earl C.
Grow his applicable straight time rate of pay from February
12,
197+
and each work day thereafter until restored to service,
account unjust dismissal, and;
(3)
That Electrician Earl C. Grow be restored to service with all
seniority rights, benefits and privileges unimpaired, including
vacation rights, made whole for all health and insurance benefits,
and;
Form 1 Award No. 7322
Page 2 Docket No. 7022-I
2-EST-I-'77
(4)
That Electrician Earl C. Grow be made whole for pension benefits
including Railroad Retirement and Unemployment Insurance, and;
(5)
That Electrician Earl C. .Grow, be made whole for any other benefits
that would have been earned during the time he was held out of
service.
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 ox 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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Petitioner and Carrier both allege procedural violations in the instant
case. Carrier argues that the claim is barred under the time limit rule
(Paragraph (a) of Rule 7-A-1) inasmuch as the appeal from discipline
Ifto
allegedly was not presented within 10 working days after Claimant was
notified of the discipline imposed.
Petitioner states that Claimant was never timely notified by Carrier,
either orally or in writing, relative to his dismissal. It is Petitioner's
position that although the hearing was held on February
6,
197+, Claimant
was never notified of his dismissal until September 11, 197+.
Carrier argues that Claimant refused to sign a G-32 Form on February 19,
197+, which contained notice of Claimant's dismissal "in all capacities".
Carrier asserts proof of this is found in the affidavits from two (2)
General Foremen and one (1) Assistant General Foreman, dated April 24, 197+.
According to Carrier, nothing was heard from Claimant ox his representa
tive until over five (5) months later, when the Superintendent of Labor
Relations received the Local Chairman's letter of July 25, 197+, in which he
requested a discussion of the status of Claimant.
While evidence of the notice of dismissal being sent to Claimant via
certified mail might have eliminated this procedural controversy altogether,
nevertheless, the Board is persuaded from an examination of the record as
a whole, that Claimant was timely notified of his dismissal, but an appeal
was not timely filed under Rule 7-A-1 of the Agreement.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No. 7322
Docket No. 7022-I
2-PCT-I-'77
Therefore, the Division has no alternative except to dismiss the claim
fox want of authority to hear and determine it upon the merits. Awards of
this Division, too numerous to cite, have consistently so held under
comparable circumstances.
A W A R D
Claim dismissed.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By -~n-~-2c_2.7~ /L~-~--/
~osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th day of July,
1977.
--Now