Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7350
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7202
2-P&PU-CM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert A. Franden when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
6,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Peoria and Pekin Union Railway Company
Distoute· . Claim
of
EmnlwPC·
1. That under the current Agreement the Carrier improperly dealt
with and thereby damaged Car Inspector Donald Unes when he was
assessed five (5) working days suspension on September 19, 1975.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Car Inspector
Donald Unes for five days' pay.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was charged by letter of September 4, 1975, of using profane
language toward, and engaging in an altercation with, I.T.C. Terminal
Supervisor William Slama during the course of duty with Carrier, August 29,
1975.
The formal investigation scheduled for September 9, 1975, was, at the
request of the Local Chairman, postponed until September 11, 1975, after
which Claimant was given five (5) working days suspension.
At the investigation Mr. Slama, officer of the I.T.C. which has contracted
with Carrier for certain services, testified that Claimant became very angry
and abusive toward him and hit him in the jaw. This alleged attack was a
result of Mr. Slama reporting that Claimant was sleeping in the caboose he
was assigned to service. Claimant denies the profanity and striking of
Mr. Slama.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 7350
Docket No. 7202
2-P&PU-CM-'77
Prior award of this Division have made it clear that it is not the
function of this Board to substitute its judgment where there is conflicting
testimony so long as there is substantial evidence to support the result of
the hearing (Second Division Award 6372). If we were to decide every case
in favor of a Claimant where it was one man's word against another, all that
would be required would be a denial of the charge. In this case there is no
reasonable explanation to support a finding that Mr. Slama, who was not
acquainted with Claimant, would fabricate such charges. Neither do we
find sufficient grounds to support the allegation that Claimant did not
receive a fair trial.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
/ O-A-.-#
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of September, 1977.