F oxxn 1 NATIOTvTAL RAILROAD ADJUSTTvTTiT BOARD Award No.
7+80
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
731+
2-soo= CM-'78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee
Abraham
'r7eiNS when award was rendered.
( System Federation No.
7,
Railway Employes'
Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.
Parties to Dispute:
( (Caxmen)
( Soo Line railroad company
D
1.sputc:
Claim
of Emma_oyes:
1. Th°::a the Caxr' ex violated Rule 32 z:hen Cantl.a,n D. W. Perish ~-Tas
required to purchase safety shoes as a condition of continued
emplo~nnerlt.
2. That accordir~;l.y the Ca,xxa.ex be ordered to rei:r'bulose Car:aan D. VT.
Perish $20.33 he paid fox safety shoes to qaalify for return to
service.
Find:i ngs
The Second Division of the Adjustment i'oa:ed, upon the whole record and
a.13 the
evidence,
finds t1lat:
The carrier or carriers and the employe o;.' elr.T~1o~,-c...^-. involved
-7_n
this
oc
> , and
Y·
'1 r ~ "}~ r
:f,:ca.?'111Irr O .i_~ n
dispute s.a°c x~.Npe:ct~_-rE.:L~,~ carrier e..~.o;;~ ~c~riciiin the
Q,
f
Railway Labor Act as approved June a'1,
1U'34.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said. dispute i~ra:i_ved right of appearance at heaxin- thereon.
The Claimant injured his foot on Febrmaxy 2n,
1975.
lie 1%,as not -,,Tearing
safety shoe::. Carxiez· :Lnfo~.~ed the Claimant he coal d not return to
work
until
he complied with Carrier's safety xRa1e dated June
6, 197-,
which reads as
f olloirs
"Effect3.tre izmnc.diately, all-, r employee not wearing the recc:mnPnded
safety shoe and who inc-a-w: a foot; injury i,fhile on duty ivi7_l not
be pex:nitted to return to ~~ro:ck w-ithout wearinI , the pr- ed
sa,fety shoe or= shoz~;ing evidence to his supervisor that such shoes
are on order.
The Company is now subsidiz4I.rv-. safety shoos at 30 of cost and
employees are to be encouAs,cred to purchase safety shoes."
Form 1
Award
No.
7480
Pale 2 Docket No.
7311+
?_-S00-CM-'
`T8
The Claimant pa.'rchased a pair of safety .hoes for which he paid
*20.33.
It is fox this sure that he now wishes to be compensated.
There is no evidence in the record which shows that the "safety rule"
of June
6, 1S)74,
quoted shove, was ever posted at all shop points, particularly
at the Claimant's work ^ ration. Since it appears from the record that
Claimant eras completely unaware of this "safety x'u_1e" we believe the claim
should. be sustained.
A
VT
A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIOi?U RAIT,P,OA-D ADjUSTI~'~.I~'T1T L0IJtD
By Order of Second Division
Atte:zt: Executive Secretary
national Railroad Adjiistment Board
.r.._.._. _._....y,~ _:.,-.-.._.-,~..~...
_ ._~..~ .~_ ._._._._.____..'.~h _ ~:;a~
_- a,~
ti''0.~,'.~t.aa j:'_LC.. `,'l.'2,s C;:1 - ..c.;?.".itl? S-l:i.'a
'~°i~ee _'. ~:>:1_NtG,YIt
Dated at ~ Chicago, ilJ.:in.ois, this 2 lith day of February,
1978.