Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTINT"rT BOARD Award No.
7680
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7499
2-SLSF-bIA-'
78
The Second Division consisted of the regva=.r members and in
addition Referee Arthur T. Van Wart when aq,i=;1rd eras rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
Dispute: Claim m -of i~-,rployes:
1. That the St. Louis,- San Francisco Railway Company unjustly
suspended Machinist R. J. Agostini from service for a twoweek period from July 2,
1976
th!'ou~-.h July 15,
1976.
2. That accordingly, the St. Louis - San Francisco Railway Company
be ordered to compensate Machinist R. J. A-;ostini in the amount
of eight
(8)
hours' pay at the pro rata rate of pay for July 2,
3, 4, 7, 8. 9,
10, 11, 14, and
15, 1976.
In addition, he shall
receive all benefits accruing to any other er-:ployee in active
service, including vacation rights and seniority unimpaired.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the enpl oye or erriployes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and emp:Loye within-the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
19311.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dislrate waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant, a six year journeyman machinist on the third shift at
Carrier°s Springfield, Missouri Diesel Shop, received the following letter,
dated July 2,
1976:
"You are hereby notified as a result, of investigation...,
in connection with your being observed at approximately
6:31
a.m., June
13, 1.976,
sitting in a slumped position,
resting your head in the palm of
luVG
hand while in the
welding booth in the basement of tore Diesel Shop, in
violation of Rule B, as it relates to negligent or
indifferent, to duty, and Rule C, a;° it relates to
employees being alert and giving their undivided attention
Form 1 Award No.
7680
Page 2 Docket No.
7499
2-SLSF-MA-
t
78
"to duties during their prescribed hours, of the Rule,
Regulations, Safety Rules and Instructions governing
Mechanical. Department Employees, ... you are dismissed
from service for a two week period, July 2,
1976
through and including July
15, 1.976."
Claimant testified that after finishing work on a particular engine,
5:00
a.m.
ox 5:30
a.m., he so advised his foreman to that effect. Claimant
stayed around the ,ramp area until 6:00 a.m. He said he had a headache,
went to his locker, took two headache pills, then went and sat down in the
welding booth. Claimant denied that he had been sleeping.
The Shop Superintendent testified that in the course of his usual
checking, of the shops, he walked through the basement and observed
Claimant in the welding booth, in a relaxed position. The Superintendent
walked up to the open door of the booth and stood seven to ten feet from
Claimant and observed him for several minutes. Claimant was sitting in a
slumped position, head resting on the palm of his left hand and his eyes
were closed. Thereafter, the Superintendent left and went to the General
Foreman's office and ,returned with a Supervisor and an Electrician. The
three then ,repeated the same observation of Claimant. Claimant was still
in the same position. They conversed with. each other verifying that in
their opinion Claimant -v,-as asleep and that the time was
6:30
a.m.
Thereafter, the Superintendent walked around Clais-rant and allegedly
awakened and talk(-d with him. Claimant denied that he had any problems
and that he was asleep. The latter two witnesses so testified.
The Board finds that Clair-ant was given a fair and .impartial
investigation. lie eras capably represented, faced his accusers and was
permitted to question the various witnesses. He exercised his right of
appeal.
Sufficient evidence was adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as
to Claimant's culpability. Carrier's weighing of the evidence, its
acceptance of the testimony of its witness in preference to that of
Claimant's is held to not be error as such represented a reasonable
exercise of Carrier's discretionary right. The conclusions reached by
Carrier are not inconsistent with the evidence.
The discipline imposed is held to be reasonable. It was fairly
assessed in the light of all the facts .in this case.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No.
7680
Page
3
Docket No.
7499
2-SLSF-MA-'78
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
B y>`n
.w. ¢?' ';"'_
,`·'.e~.t:;`xF~·'~
-.,,,~Rpbsemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Datedat Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of September,
1978.