Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7+85
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 72+5
2-MP-CM-'78





Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)




Dispute: Claim of Employes:








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, 193+.

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



The Claimant, Cayman W. E. Kirkes, is employed by the Carrier at North Little Rock, Arkansas. A formal investigation was held on February 14, 1975; to develop facts and place responsibility, if any, for the Claimant's allegedly being insubordinate to his Supervisor at approximately 3:00 A.M., January 4, 1975, while on duty. Following the investigation, Claimant was advised by the Carrier by notice, dated February 26, 1975, that; he was suspended from service for a period of sixty (60) days.

The Organization contends that Carrier conducted three investigations and administered discipline on two occasions, the first discipline being a letter of reprimand resulting from the "investigation" held on the night of January 4, 1975, and the second discipline being that of the 60-day suspension. The Organization contends that a General Foreman knows the true
Form 1 Award No. 7+85
Page 2 ~ Docket No. 72+5
2-MP-CM-'78

meaning of "reprimand", and that the only reason Carrier was unable to produce the reprimand at a later time was that it was removed after the Carrier realized its error in disciplining the Claimant twice for the same incident. Indeed the record does show that General Foreman T. W. Gorge did testify that "a record of this conversation and reprimand in (is) on file". This letter was introduced in evidence in the on property handling of this case, and we find that the letter was not a reprimand as used in any disciplinary sense, but rather a statement of Mr. Duncan's and Mr. Black's perception of the incident for the information of General Car Foreman Copeland. We find, very narrowly, that the meeting with Mr. Duncan and later the meeting with Mr. George was not in violation of Rule 32(a).

We find from the entire record that there was evidence of insubordination. We find that record also discloses evidence and circumstances which renders the discipline of a sixty-day suspension harsh and excessive.

Mr. Black, the Acting Foreman primarily involved in this incident with the Claimant, testified in part:





Form 1 Award No. 7485
page 3 Docket No. 72+5
2-MP-CM-'78
"briefly to Mr. Tom Duncan, General Car Foreman, and
requested him to get Mr. Kirkes to the office so we
could discuss the matter. Mr. Duncan went out, got
Mx. Kirkes, brought him to the office and we discussed
it. That's basically how it ended."


































Form 1 Award No. 7+85
Page 4 Docket No. 72+5
2-MP-CM-'78
Mr. Kixkes testified:









A.










We order that the discipline be reduced to 30 days actual suspension and that the Claimant be made whole fox his wage loss suffered, less any outside earnings.
Foam 1 Award No. 7+85
Page 5 Docket No. 72+5
2-MP-CM-`78



    Claim sustained in part as per Findings.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By
      semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of April, 1978.