Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7923
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7815
2-SCL-CM-
'79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George E. Larney when award was rendered,
( System Federation No. 1+2, Railway Employes'
Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employer:
1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company violated the teams
of the controlling Agreement when they suspended Coach Cleaner
C. K. Williams from service for thirty (30) consecutive days.
2, That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad be ordered to
compensate
C. K. Williams for all time lost. That the time lost be credited
to her for vacation purposes and all other benefits accruing to
her position be restored.
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,
1931+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant. was suspended from service of the company for thirty (30)
consecutive days following a formal investigation held December 1,
1976,
Claimant was charged with violating Safety Rule
17
for Mechanical
Department employees, which states:
"Profane, indecent or abusive language is prohibited,"
The Organization set forth in their submission the following two
contentions:
(1) Rule
17
is not a part of the Controlling Agreement of January 1,
1978
as subsequently amended since this rule eras not one which was
negotiated between the parties. The
organization thus
maintains
that the Carrier is attempting to amend or add rules to the
Controlling Agreement.
Form l Award No. 7923
Page
2
Docket No.
7815
2-scZ-CM-'79
(2)
The Claimant did not use profane, indecent, or abusive language
in dealing with the Foreman.
The Board rejects contention number l set forth above on the well
established grounds that rules promulgated by Carrier, unless they contravene:
the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, must be complied with by
employees. This principle is clearly stated in Awards
5987
and
7161
respectively
as follows:
"General Rules promulgated by Carrier., unless they
contravene the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, are mandatory standards with which an employee
agrees to comply, expressly or implieclly, in his employment contract. Failure to comply subjects him to
disciplinary action."
and
"It is well established that a Carrier may promulgate
rules for the conduct of employees that are not included
in the Agreement."
speeifical'I,y, the Board does not find Rule 17 in any way contravening
of the terms of the Controlling Collective Bargaining Agreement.
As to the second contention which goes to the heart of the issue in
the instant case, that being whether or not Claimant did, in fact, use
profane, indecent, or abusive language in the discourse between herself
and her supervisor on the morning of -November
23, 1976,
the Board notes the
the conflicting testimony in the record and further notes that the testimony
of witnesses at the December 1,
1976
investigation fails to reconcile the
differing versions of the surrounding events given by the Claimant C. K.
Williams and her supervisor C. A. Weirick. Under such circumstances, the
Board must adhere to the following long standing principles as they apply
in discipline cases:
(1) The Board sits as an appelate tribunal and is not in a position
to resolve conflicts in evidence;
(2)
The Board is not in a position to substitute their judgment for
that of the Carrier in matters of discipline; and as a corollary
to point 2,
(3)
The Carrier has a right to rely on the observations of its
supervisors in matters of discipline.
Form 1 Award
No.-7923
Page
3
Docket
No. 7815
2-scz-CM-t79
Therefore, concluding that Claimant had a fair and impartial hearing on
December 1, 1976; that the disciplinary action imposed on the Claimant was
neither arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, nor excessive; and that the
evidence from the record supports the finding of guilt; the Board upholds
the thirty (30) day disciplinary suspension.
A WAR D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEi1T BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By .~ .r e~-~...-_
~R semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois., this 16th day of Play,
1979.