Form 1 NATIOPL.4L RAILROAD AD.)U_Th_E1V'f BOARD Award No. 7781+
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 789
2-sLSi-MA-' 79







Dispute: Claim of Emnloyes





















Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the erp:Lf,ye or ~mployes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the neanin` of the Rail-vray Labor Act as approved june 21, l(,)?4.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dis.vat!':, involved herein.



Claimant, a mo.ch:i_nist, was suspended from December 18s 176 through January 2, 1977 fox' ullegcdly cxasinG a. deliberate slovrctozm of work and failure to _hux'~.'o?-an wa_1 the vro~k assigned -to hL:i on the service track during his tour of duty iTovemoex~ 29, 1976.
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 7784

Docket No. '(6S89

2-SLSF-MA-`7o,


Claimant no maL'Ly worked in the shop. On the day in question, znWxked by inclement weather -- cold with -icy condit'cons -- Claimant -was assigned to work on the service track dur-~.ng the second half of his shift,. Claimant had last been .regularly- a~signed to the service track socie seven years previous to that date, and he so infoxrned his immediate supervisor, c4 ,relief foreman.

At tho hearing, Claimant's activities on 1iovember 29 were described by the relief fore-nan =~ n the foLlo;,ring tc:~-irs: he "was jias t out there vralking around."; and. that vrith respect to the units on which he was to work that d3;,r, "one roan could have perfox-med th:i.s n,ork e:L'L'icientl;;T ... under nor-,Pal cixcum;,Wxces." i'h.e x~;:Lzcf Fo;ce:!°vn also te:,tifi ed that he had tva-ice :C'uxn:1shed Clalamrc, vr_i_th he:?1? (an aprYwn~ice) that day, once at Claimant's e~ecauest when he -was getting behind in his woxh , in order to get the vroxk done on t~!a7.

But the ci.xcu.~nstaYaces that day were rot nor;r_a.1. The znachinist on the next shift test~.-F'-ed that it took longer that day to do the ~,Tmrk because "-It v:~.s i.cy, the rLu!rz:im; bo::,xds were icy, it was, cold, and the cold weather maL(,s the oil -ran slow."


he was mist.~r,en as '1;o the amount of vrox'> pcxzorncd by C:Lai-nant which led
to the eharFe against Cle.ixnan'c; tb.~:..:i; he had in undw?--tated what
Claimant actually did, and he then. proceedCa to itemize the specific
work pexfot.r.eci by Caai1;?.tt.

In short, the allegation that Claimant had not performed an adequate amount of wo-i~k is not supmoirted car the record anti Carrier has not sustained its burden of :0-.roof in that respect.

Tho record does not substantiate the charge against the Claimant and the claim vaiL be sustained.

Claim sustained.

A v,T A R D

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

R?ATIOM-L RULROAD ADJUS'1'1 ~ L rT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


_._~r_.___~.__. ~,_.~.__ ___.___.____.


Dated at Chicza.co, Illinois, this

~I-th day of Jatluary, 197: