Form 1 ~~
L C L~
' ONAZ RAILROAD ADJUSTT= BOARD Award No,
79+0
,.1 UN 4 1979
SECOND DIVISION Do Uo.
773
The'Secon~bivi~s
on!c
nsisted of the reg~u-1ar members and in
addition Referee Robert A, Franden when award was rendered,
( System Federation No.
76,
Raih~,ray Employes'
( Department, A, F. of Z, - C, I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
( Chicago, I~Iil-~raukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Campany
Dispute: Claim of E:rmloyes:
1. That the Chicago, I~lilwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
did unjustly and improperly remove Cayman G, hiska from service
on December 18,
1976
pending hearing held on December
28, 1976
and
further held him out of service until January
19, 1977,
in
violation of the controlling Agreement, specifically Rule 34(G),
2, That the Chicago, Mlilwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
be ordered to compensate Caiman G. Liska for every day that he was
deprived of working at his usual and regular assignment as a, Camnan
Carpenter in the D1ilvraukee Road Diesel '-House starting December
18,
1976
until he was restored to service on Jarnzary
19, 1977.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that;
The carrier or carriers and the employs or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
193+.
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 the service of the Carrier on December 18,
1976
pending an investigation of his alleged insu."aordination. Claimant was
returned to service on January
19, 197'
with a finding that he was guilty of
the offense and that the time of his being held out of service, December 18,
1976
to January
19, 1977,
would serve as his discipline.
The transcript of the investigation reveals that substantive evidence
of probative value was submitted at the hearing which would support the
finding that Claimant eras insubor dinate in fai ling to obey a direct order
on the day in question. The time Claimant iras hold out of service was not
an excessive waount of time to assess as a penalty for the offense.
Form 1 Award No. 79-0
Page 2 Docket No.
7736
2-CI~BtP&P-CM- `79
A further question raised by the Organization is whether it was proper
to hold the Claimant out of service pending the investigation. Rule
35
provides that "Suspension, in proper cases, pending a hearing, which shall
be prompt, shall not be deemed a violation of this rule". The -[aq we
must decide is whether under the facts at bars this is a proper case.
Certain agreements contain language which define a proper case as "one
where leaving the man in service pending, an investigation would endanger the
employe or his fellow employer or com-
pany interest", such as existed in the
rule in question 5.n A~rard
6900
cited by the enployes, in which it was decided.
that insubordination was not a "proper case".
The greater weight of the authorities of this Board support the
proposition that insubordination is a proper case for holding an employe out
of service pending an investigation where the term "proper case" is not
defined in the ru~.e. See Awards 4.a.OI+,
71.50, 6515
and 7034.. We will follow
the great weight of the established precedents of the Board and deny the
claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RATZROAD ADJUST= BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By v?~-GR
os (--narie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Date at Chicago T1linois, this 24th day of May, 1979.