Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7991
SECOM DIVISION Docket No. 7922
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert Z. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists
( Washington Terminal Company
Dispute: Claim of F~ployes:
1. That the Washington
Terminal
Company arbitrarily and capriciously
dismissed P4achinist Apprentice R. M, hicElveen from service on
December 1,
1977,
as a result of a hearing held on November
30,
1977.
2. Accordingly, Machinist Apprentice R. M. McElveen should be restored
to sexvi-ce as a Machinist Apprentice in good standing and his
record cleared of arty reference to the hearing held on November 30,
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 employe 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, employed on July
15, 1976,
-was enrolled by the Carrier in
the Machinists` Apprenticeship Training Program with the Railway Educational
Bureau on November
8, 1976.
This program is an integral part of the
apprenticeship training program agreed to by the Carrier and the Organization
through an apprenticeship training program dated April 1,
1975.
Section
4
(d) of this agreement reads in part;
" Progress in connection with the Railway Educational
Bureau Program will not be considered satisfactory if
the apprentice becomes more than three months behind in
° completing his lessons or if the apprentice becomes
more than three months behind in re~rrnrking lessons graded
at less than
75%;
but illness or other causes beyond the
control of the apprentice will be taken into consideration.
Form 1 Award No.
7991
Page 2 Docket No. 7922
2-WT-MA-'79
"An apprentice dismissed from service solely because of
unsatisfactory progress in technical training will be
reinstated if he submits all lessons in arrears in
satisfactory condition to the apprentice supervisor
within 10 working days after his dismissal."
Claimant fell woefully behind in completing his correspondence lesson's
almost from the outset of the program. After a warning and later an
investigative hearing, Claimant was initially dismissed from service on
October ZL,
1977.
Two days later, ho advised the Master Mechanic that he ',.-,ad
completed all overdue lessons and was mailing them to the Educational
Bureau. On the strength of this statement, he was reinstated. It later
developed, however, that the Claimant had, in fact, not submitted all. overdue
lessons, as further reports from the Edizcational Bureau continued to report
Claimant behind schedule. Consequently, ai'ter a farther hearing, Claimant
was dismissed from service on December 1,
1977,
for failing to maintain
satisfactory progress in the training program.
Some months after the investigative hearing and subsequent dismissal,
several letters were produced by the Claimant from the Educational Bureau
indicating that he had brought his work up to date. Owing to the delay in
the presentation of these letters, there can reasonably be presumed to be
some doubt as to their probity. Even if accepted at face value, however,
they do not address to the fact that Claimant failed to keep up with his
work in the training program, even after being warned and previously
dismissed and reinstated.
The Carrier acted within the terms of the apprenticeship agreement,
after giving the Claimant an entirely reasonable opportunity to correct his
ways.
A WA R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
~osema,rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated It Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of June,
1979.