Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTM= BOARD Award No. 7992
SECOND DIVISION Docket No, 792+
2-SPT-CM-' 79





Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company

Dispute: Claim of Fmplayes:











Findin sue:

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 anal 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.



Following an investigative hearing, Claimant's discipline record was assessed 60 demerits "for sleeping while on duty as Cayman, Englewood Yard, at approximately 2:25 A.M.,, April 29, 1977, which is a violation of Rule 810 of the General Rules and Regulations of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company."





The Organization raises two threshold issues: first, that the Carrier official who cited Claimant for investigation was also the officer assessing
Foam l Page 2

Award No. 7992
Docket No. 792+
2-SPr-CM-' 79

the discipline following the investigation, thus deny-Ing the claimant a "full and impartial investigation" as required by Rule 34; and second, that the Agreements provides no rule for assessment of demerits on an employe's record.

As to the first point, the Board finds that the procedure followed in, this instance did not deny the Claimant his fk.U rights under Rule 34. Numerous previous Awards have dealt with the multiplicity of role question.. To find that a claimant's rights have been impaired, such a~-ards have relied on more than the technicality of the participation of a Carrier officer in. more than one role. In this instance, a different official conducted the hearing and the witnesses were those Carrier supervisors directly involved. in the incident. Pro impairnant of the light to a full defense and an impartial heating was involved in this instance.

As to the second point, the Organization offers no reasoning or support for its objection to the use of disciplinary demerits in lieu of a suspension or removal. action. Carrier correctly asserts that the Agreement does not restrict it as to a method of assessing disciplinary penalties. The record is undisputed that this Carrier has employed tine demerits system for some tide.

As to the question of whether the Claimant vms guilty of the offense charged, two Carrier witnesses testified with consistency and certainty that they had observed the Claimant asleep in the cab of a truck. Claimant's explanation that he was merely moving across the truck seat to get out is self-serving. The Board finds no reason to question the Carrier's resolution of this conflict against the Claimant. Nor is there any demonstration of discriminatory treatment against the Claimant in exercising disciplinary measures in the face of a violation of Rule 810, satisfactorily proved through a fair and impartial investigation.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJLJSThENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By ~ -sz.-- ~ ,Z_e.~°
~emarie Branch - Administrative Assistant

Dated a( Chicano Illinois, this 27th day of June, 1979.