Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOATED Award No. 7I+9I+
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7I+34
2-BIVI-FO- t 78





Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)




Dispute: Claim of Employer:





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 employer 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.



Claimant eras suspended from service on October 1, 1975, prior to a formal investigative hearing; after such hearing on October 9, 1975, the suspension was directed b y the Carrier to be of 15 days' duration. Disciplinary action by the Carrier was based on "violation of Rule 'G' of the Safety Rules of Form 15001, October 1, 1975, as disclosed by investigation accorded you October 9, 1975."




Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 7494

Docket No. 7434

2-BNI-FO-'78


The Board finds no substantive defects in the procedure followed by the Carrier in making the charge against the Claimant or in its content of the October 9, 1975, hearing. The Organization claims that sufficient written notice of the charge to the "appropriate local organization representatives" was not given. However, Carrier's notice to the Claimant included reference to copy for the appropriate representative. The Organization argument that the charge presumed guilt of the Claimant is not well founded, as it was made clear that the scheduled investigation was for the purpose of "determining ... responsibility". Finally, the hearing itself provided fall opportunity for the defense of the Claimant by himself and hip representative.

The record shows that Carrier administered discipline based upon an allegation that the Claimant had consumed a glass of beer some three hours or more prior to reporting for duty as scheduled. That allegation was based, first, on the obviously self-serving statement of another employe, who himself was under investigation for his actions prior to reporting on duty; and second, on what can only be found to be an intense "grilling" of the Claimant in which he was reported to have stated that he had a glass of beer at least three hours prior to reporting fox duty.

The Carrier had no independent observation of the Claimant prior to duty. The Claimant has no disciplinary history. No direct appearance that he had been drinking was claimed when he did report fox work. His socalled "admission" was made in the presence of three Carrier representatives but with no representative of his own. And the employe who had been the source of the original information failed to repeat it at the formal investigation.

Burden of proof in disciplinary matters rests with the Carrier. In the present instance, such proof eras notably lacking.

The Board will sustain the claim to the extent indicated in Rule 28 (g), which carries no reference to compensation for "fringe benefits".

A W A R D

Claim sustained to extent indicated in Findings.

NATIONAL RAILMAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board



Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of April, 1978.