Form 1
Parties to Dispute:
Dispute: Claim of En-ployes:
NATIONAL RAILROAD
AD~TtTSTMLNT
BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No.
73+3
Docket No.
7195
2-CR-CM-177
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBrearty when award was rendered.
System Federation No. 109, Railway Employes'
Department, A. F. of L.
(Carmen)
Consolidated Rail Corporation (BDG)
1. That under the current agreement, Welder Agostino Ninfo was unjustly
dealt with when he was, assessed with a thirty
(30)
actual working
day suspension from the Reading Company commencing January 1,
1975.
(A) That accordingly, Welder Agostino Ninfo is entitled to be compensated
for all lost wages, including overtime that he would have made as are
extra board member of the Reading Wreck Train as of January 13, 1,7`i,
plus
b0,1o
interest per annum commencing as of January
13, 1975.
That
Mr. Ninfo be compensated fox all wages lost while being denied the
right to be a member of the Reading Wreck Train since January
13,
1975.
2
Findings:
(B) Make claimant whole fox all vacation rights.
(C) Pay the premiums fox hospital, surgical and medical benefits for
all time held out of service.
(D) Pay the premiums for Group Life Insurance for all the time held
out of service.
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 id 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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 73+3 ,~
Page 2 Docket No. 7195
2-CR-CM-'77
Claimant was employed as a Car Repairman at Carrier's Reading,
Pennsylvania Car Shop. On January
13,
1975, he was withheld from service
pending a hearing in connection with his alleged failure to perform his
assigned duties.
A hearing was held on January 21, 1975 in connection with:
"Your failure to properly perform the duties of scaling
roof of covered hopper car Rdg 78893 on No.
4
track outside north end of Reading Freight Car Shop as assigned to
you by Assistant Foreman L J Edling on Monday, November 26,
1974;
"Your failure to perform the duties of burning roof rivets
on car BFF No. 102 on No. 7 track outside of south end of
Reading Freight Car Shop as assigned to you by Assistant
Foremen W. Ughes on Monday, December 16, 197+;
"Your objections concerning your assignment of working on
roof of car RDG 41468 on No. 1 track at southeast corner
of Reading Freight Car Shop as assigned to you by Assistant
Foreman W M Boris on Tuesday December 17, 197+;
"Your failure to perform the duties of burning roof rivets -
on Car BFF No. 192 on No. 7 track outside south end of
Reading Freight Car Shop as assigned to you by Superintendent
Reading Car Shops J. Leone on Monday, January
13,
1975·
"In addition to the above, the following charge is added
thereto:
"Improper information completed by you on Form M D - 1,
March 8, 197!+. "
The hearing was held as scheduled at which time Claimant was present
and represented.
Following the hearing, Claimant was assessed a thirty (30) day actual
suspension which was measured from January
13,
1975.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record in this case, including
the presentations as made to our Board by the able representatives of both
sides. From the hearing record we conclude that Claimant experienced some
trepidation when instructed to perform duties which required him to utilize
both the portable and the fixed scaffolds. However, there is no evidence in
this record that he refused to perform the work assigned to him. He either
performed it at a pace slower than normal or his supervisor relieved him of the
job assignment and gave him another assignment.
Foam 1 Award No.
73+3
page
3
Docket No.
7195
2-CR-CM-'77
Therefore, based on this record, we hold that the assessment of a
thirty
(30)
day suspension was not justified. Claimant is entitled to be
compensated for the wages lost from his regular assignment in accordance with
the provisions of kale
34.
There is not sufficient evidence to support the
claim for extra work on the wreck train during the suspended period. Claimant
admittedly had an uneasy feeling when climbing on top of scaffolds and cars,
and it was not until March
15, 1975
that claimant notified Carrier that those
conditions no longer bothered him and he wished to go back on the relief
(wreck) train. There is no showing of health and welfare benefits loss
inasmuch as claimant worked in each month during the suspended period.
Therefore, that issue need not be ruled on. There is no contractual basis
to support the claim fox
6%
interest.
A W A R D
Claim No. 1 is sustained.
Claims No. 2A, B, C, D sustained in accordance with the Findings above.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
NI
ational Railroad Adjustment Board
By
L--
o emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of September,
1977.
~`""
''~_`