Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJZ,TUT2eiEN'=C BOARD Award No. 7815
;ECOND D:T1T,;STO1'd Doclret i;o. 7746
2-BRCofC -FO-'79

The Second v9_vis:i.otz consisted of the regular Member-- and in addition Referee George S. Roukis when award iras tendered.

System Federation No. 6, 'Raihiay Employes'

( Depa.ri:,_rm: nt, .rA.. Y.: o' L. - C . I . 0 .

Parties to Dispute: ( (t~'ix'en:en & oilers)

( Belt Eailway Company of Chicago

- ,

Dispute: Claim o.s' f t._~_.,,.~,lo;res

1. That Laborer f,':ent h.ICAt.'thur was unjustly dismissed from service by the Belt EW 'l=w,- n'o~,.~,wT,r on. ..Tl~nr: ?9, 177 fa:Ll.oc~r-- g an investigation which was he:1.d, on 5-uno 2Q, 1977.

2. Thai; accordingly the Belt RailTrray Company be ordered to return ha3?oxex Kent 1.'c-Arthur to work irk.^.ed.Lately z-;u.th pay for all tare lost, restoration 0f f:al;L seniority and all. benefits he would have beers entitled to.

r a_ndir.. s :

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

The carriex or carriers and the employe ox employes :involved in this Gi.l_N'~:"l4?te are respectively carrier t.',.r1d employe within the meaning of tbhe hail-may Labor Act as ,.,..M?roved Junf21, 3.934.

This Division of t}=a Adj11StY:1('.il'LL i'aa]'d ':a.3 jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Patties to said dispute wr;.ived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Clai,Ynant i~a'a.s di smi,sred from service alter an investigative ,pxoceed>i_ng held on dune 29, l.o,`T'l c.etE:zm:izled that he ;vas guilty of insubordination toward the diesel forena~.i.

Clsllna.nt asserts that suld termination was improper since he vas not afforded an adequate opportunity to prepare properly for his defense or alternatively use a tape recorder to record the investigation.

Carrier an, the other hand, a'r.Zues that Agreement Bale 12 requiring the ccrmp3_ilatian of a stenographic rocond ezxu~ l :icitly provides a zmutual3_y .greed upon transcription and review process 1:0 1u31'.=2 reportaEe accuracy. it avers that t('.1.5 I"aC'{;iCe ,_._,:. been consistently observed on this proporty. Moreover, it COi1':i'nCi,. that :C?llul1?E theltt`ieC'ii:ir'~`I;.V'E:' }Gar1.nJ oncl'~:.`?E: 29, lj'('(~ `v~u.S reflective o,.." a long fSii.Ul:StGd 't,1t1C1°x~'v.'-.il':.i.-.:.rl~ to provide Fa'.
Form 1 Award Tiao 715
Page 2 Docket TT.o- 77+6

2-BECofc-FO- t 79

suspended employee a 'prompt investigation to c;void. un~ra.nted unerr._r?7_ovrnent. -It noted that claimant could have easily requested a hearing postponemerW if he felt that he needed more time fox' preparation.

This Board ha:,s carefully xwenrz eT,Ted the record and finds that clairnant

was given a fair aria reasonable a;:uor'tunit·r to conduct.: his defense.
There was no shozair..-, that T-;t;le 1=- zras, ever. btzrdensone or .prejudicial or
that a tune recorJ.~r' ~:._:; ever are a:Lt,ernat-ive recoro.intV reoa:;.lit;;r C_L2.i:nant
could have easily e~tT~%,:u.LE'-d :'O"Zli;e.Lf of the option t0 rf'.~r.ifiSt a Lle^c..L'ln
post,ponernent, but instead on the morning of the inves'c:iat;.on, objected
to the conduct of the _px'oceedi7G ~~nd T·r~.~ h..ed out. The i.eaY·ing officer,
duly convened the :i_t2vc:;;trr;a`L:i.an and after all the test:T.~ony r and suyyortive
arguments were com.;)letc:d, subse;_,zently- found claimant u:ilty of the charged
specification.

Since we have thus concluded that the hearing was ,procedurally proper,

we will not substatu`.:.e our judjez:nt for the substantiv-e deter:nination, in
the absence c.f a clear and co?~'o ~_a.ing showin of ca.pricious or arbitrary
conduct. ._

Claimant was found guilty o_~" insubordination. His em ~r7_oymenv record

dramatically .1p
~Y".J_SOr,,dra.T?'a'3·tiCal.Lj% reveals an :115tO''·;.u. !nd4_S:L.)G~·I'G-jC;YI 'f:0 perform assigned C:U7::LE:S
or orJ-i ~'Y'l1, . ~r Tj.e V;aS the subject of three Other

ose S~Y"._SOrv,, n._'fa n._t7.Or_.~.

:inVesti~,atzons Prior ;;o this infraction, bW~ uniox'tunatelyr the i:?iposed
progressive d=sciy:>1 jrarry thereayj- ;~ns unavai 1ir>` >, Accox"a;_n_;1y, vre have
no alternative under the specific circumstances of this dipute but to deny
the claim in its entirety.

A the A R D

Claim denied.

NATT0~1h ?:ULROAD ADJUS`1'TviEW.' BOP RD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railrond Adjustment Board

y , ~

I )of~ ej ~a Y s i, at 've 1 s a -)t,

I - r L

c urase s] s C, I L
Dated a t Chicago, I11iaois, this .10th day of JjanuvLy, 19; a.