Form 1 NATIONAL RAn,ROAD ADJUSTMElV'T BOARD Award No. 7349
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7252
2-A&S-CM-'77





Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)



Dispute: Claim of Em loyes:





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, 1934.

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



Claimant is a Carman working at Carrier's East St. Louis, Illinois, Humping Yards as a Car Inspector on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 aM shift. He has approximately seven (7) years and four (4) months seniority.

On August 22, 1975, Claimant was notified to appear on August 26, 1975, for a formal investigation "to develop the facts and place responsibility, if any, for your reported failure to properly perform your duties in connection with the handling of Car i~T' 352665 at or about 12:01 AM, August 20, 1975.'1
Form 1 Award No. 7349
Page 2 D2cA&S-CM-·7752

The investigation was postponed until 9:00 AM Wednesday, September 3, 1975.

On September 4, 1975, Claimant was notified by Carrier that effective that date he was being dismissed from service of Carrier "for failing to perform the duty of your assignment on August 20, 1975."

On February 5, 1976, Claimant was notified by Carrier that he was being recalled to service as of that date because "we feel the discipline has been duly served."

The background facts in the record before us indicate that on August 20, 1975, Claimant occupied the position of Carman assigned at the Crest of the Carrier's East St. Louis :-lump Yard. An important part of the duties and responsibilities assigned to the occupant of this position is the inspection of cars for defects or conditions which would make them unsafe for movement over the Hump and through the retarders into the classification tracks in the Bowl Yard. When such defects or conditions are observed, the Carman is required to notify the Hump Yardmaster before permitting the movement of such cars over the Iiump.

During Claimant's tour of duty, approximately 12:01 AM, August 20, 1975, Car MP 352665, which had been inspected by Claimant, was humped into track number 039, which was clear at the time. The retarders were unable to control the speed of MP 352665, recorded by the Hump Yardmaster at 16 m.p.h. coming out of the retarders. As a result, the car ran out the west end of track 039 and into the side of a cut of cars on the Tweet Lead, after which it derailed, fouling track 038.

The humping operation was stopped immediately and an inspection was made of the retarders and the car, whereupon a white substance (later identified as ferrous copper sulfate) was found caked on the wheels, undercarriage, and ends of car MP 352665. The same substance was found on the retarders.

Claimant states that he did not observe arty of this substance on the flanges of the wheels, and therefore thought the condition of car NLP 352665 would not impair its control through the retarders. Claimant also states that he did not fail to comply with General Order No. 14 dated January 1, 1975, which requires the reporting of cars that have grease on the inside and outside of the wheels.

Before turning to the merits of the instant case, however, Petitioner has alleged throughout the handling of this case on the property and before this Board that Carrier violated Article V(a) of the August 21, 1954 Agreement.
Form 1 Page 3

Award No. 7349
Docket No. 7252
2-A&S-CM-'77





It is beyond dispute that Superintendent Needham gave no reasons for his denial of the Local Chairman's claim in his letter to the Local Chairman dated November 14, 1975. Moreover, it was not until February 9, 1976 that D. M. Tutko, Chief Mechanical Officer gave reasons for the Carrier's denial of the claim in his letter to the General Chairman. This was well beyond the 60-day limit prescribed in Article V(a) of the August 21, 1954 Agreement.

The pertinent language in Article V(a) is clear and unequivocal in the event of failure to timely notify whoever filed the claim in writing of the reasons for such disallowance. Accordingly, we have no alternative but to sustain the instant claim exce-ot for the awarding of six (6) percent interest and fringe benefits. (See Second Division Awards 5512, 4594, and 3312; Third Division Award 9933). We have no jurisdiction or authority to sustain the claim for insurance premiums or interest.

A W A R D

Claim sustained to the extent indicated above.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary





Ai - , .-

1"101