Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8036
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7963
2-UP-EW- t 79

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee George S. Roukis when award vas rendered.

( System Federation No. 105; Railway L~nployes'

Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.

Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical. Workers)
(
( Union :Iacifi.c Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Fmt-)loyes:

1. That at Portland, Oregon Conanunications Shop, the Union Pacific

Railroad Coz:rl)any1 on ~;eptember 22, 1977 unjustl~T assessed Equient

ma.n P. J. Rotherham- personal service record with thirty (30) days

(deferred) S'U.t?G'nSa.Orle

2. That Equigqentr-an P. Jc Rotherham's personal Service Record be

cleared of the th:i.rty (30) days deterred suspension.

Findings

The Second Division of the Adjustment Hoard., upon the whole recoxW and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and erxpJ .oye 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.

The essential fact developments in this case are clear. Claimant was charged with violating Union Pacific R%Iles 702(A) and 702(B) respectively which read as follows:

Rule 702(a) "Employees subject to call must not absent themselves from their usual calling place without notice to those required to call them,"

Rule 702(B) "Employee.,; must comply with instructions from proper authority."

An investigative hearing wELs held on September 15, 1977, pursuant to Agreement Rule 21(I-I) wherein thE: allegations were affirmed and claimant was assessed a thirty (30) days deferred suspension penalty. This decision is appealed to us on both pxocedure.l and substantive grounds.
Form 1 Award Ido, 8036
Page 2 Docket No, 7963
2-UP-FW-179

Accordingly, after reviewing the record we do not find arty evidence that claimant was treated improperly. On the contrary, we find that he was accorded a fair and impartial. :zearingo There is sufficient probative evidence to support the charges and no persuasive -rationale to disturb the penalty. Claimant's behavior under the particular circumstances of his employment was impermissible and thus we axe compelled to accept carrier's finding.

However, the matter of penalty i s now academic since the Agreement provides that a suspension wil:L be cleared if another suspension is not assessed within six (G) months,,

Claimant was not assessed a suspension penalty during the subsequent six (G) r~?otiths and rise question is now moot. Based on the forego-.Ing analysis and discussion we va:i1.'I. deny the claim.

A W A R D

Claim denied,

I`TATTOUATa RAILROAD ADJM, TME~i1' BOUD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secr6~;ary
National. Railroad Ad~iustment Board

BY _-~' .~ __._~ f_'LS
~6s. IM. Bi rich - Administrative Assistant

Dated a~Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of August, 1979.