Foxnn 1 I~./~TIOXAL RUZROAD WTIIST1,11,Z'T BOARD Award No.
7628
SECOND DhTISIU~`T Docket No.
71-3
2-NLP-CM-'
78
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert Ci. t^,Ti7.liams when award was rendered.
( System Federation Eo. 2, Railway Employes'
Department, A. 1'. of L. - C. 1. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( 24issou;ri Pacific 'riai..'Lroad Company
Dispa.te:
Claim
of Em'T)1o cps:
1. That the Missouri .Facif'ic Railroad Ccznpar;r violated Rule 32 of
the contx'o11.in w~;heement vrhen they unju-tly suspended Car-,an
V D. Cox from
Service
covering, tile period October
7, 8
arid.
October 14, to December 121,
1974.
2. That- accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Co:;lpazl,
y be ordered
to
COiI?pci1~a'Ge Cu:x^.'13.i1
Cox F:.t the pro rata rate for each. work. day
lost dur :i_n~ the sixty
( 601
day' suspension.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all `i.;le evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the ernplr,ye or e::~t>:L o;,'es involved in this
disr.ate are x'espectl.v'el'y carrier and e;rp:Loye e,ith.n the lm:a:ni.t1E;
of
tl_e
Railway Labor Act as anl~roved June, ?l, 1934
.
This Divis i.on of the Adjustment Board ha,-, jurisdiction over? the dispute
involved herein.
Pottier to said d9_ spate v;aived right of appearance at hearing, tl:.ereon.
The basic issue in this ca:>e is whether tile Carrier unjustly :,u~:pe~.ded.
the claimant for sixty
(60)
days. This Foa.rd has reviet-;ed the record of tY:
investigation in this case and has concluded that the record support-. the
disci-
plinary action tal=en aCairsst the Claimant.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIOs7AL RAILROAD AlO1U S`.ITt4-1,Pi'S BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive 1-1--cretary
w?~tion~a I:ai:Jrroa.d Act; AcUust' nent Board
d ~` __ __
_ e-_-_._ _ _ - -
`"'~fli~>,`.~<-'i:127,i'7~C.' '~jl''L;;:~Ci; - f'_C.i~'ui?:!'iv.>C~y_c..I;SV~
l`~:~~1_l·u.tl4
jLL .~_
)Dated au Chicago, I7..l.int~is,
tlr_.,..
~Ist d,zy W' Ju- :1.QV~.