Form 1 NATIONAL RA=OAD ADJUST:-X72 BOARD Award No.
3124
SECO:M DIVES -=i:_ I Docket PIo.
794+
2-SLSF-CM-'79
The Second Division consisted of the r~-,_'.^,r members and in
addition Referee Gorge S. Roukis when :: ,.°:- was rendered.
( System Federation loo.. Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. ...° _. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Ca,rl:y~
(
( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company unjustly suspended
Carmen L. warmer and C. Stiver, uprin.-field, Missouri, froth
service for thirty (30) days, beginni rg, on August
31, 1977,
through Septcnber
30, 1977,
resulting in loss of twenty t;ro (22)
working days b,,- L. rariner and t;r~nty one (211) -,orhing days by
C. Stiver, as a result ~of an invest,-,',, i Lion conducted on AuE;i;s t
1977,
in violation o- the Controlling .? greement.
2. . That the St. Tou.s-:-an 1"ranC-Sco r,ailrraV CO:pany failed to provide
materials used in 'he ._=:v---t:_;^tio>i to Carmen L. Paru:er and' C.
Stiver and t'.ier repre::r~t~t°_-.re_ prior to the investigation, for
them to prepare a proper defense.
3.
That the i nvestiger tion wr-s not fair and was improperly conducted.
4. That Carmen L. Farer and C. StIver be compensated for time
lost plus six percent
(E~;)
interest and that their personal
records be cleared of all charges pertaining to this case.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the emoloye or en.rployes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Doard has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived -:Night of appearance at hearing thereon.
After carefully considering the nn=erous procedural objections raised
by claimants re ardi ng the aci:i
his
tration and conduct of the August
9,
1977
investi--~tion, this Board does not find that clailrants' due process
rights were violated.
Form 1 Award No.
8124
Page 2 Docket No. 7944
2-SISF (;
'1'- t
79
While we express some concern erIth the long hand recording of the
hearing and the separate interrogation of the claimants, we do not find
that- specific identifable mistahes were made or the claimants questioned
in a visibly prejudicial manner. The hearing officer did not testify as a
witness and carrier adequately observed Rule 35(a)'s notification requirements. The record does not shozr that this rule was construed as including a
discovery proceeding, prior to the convening of the formal investigation
and thus we must conclude that the information delineated in carrier's
August 2,
1977
letter satisfied this requirement.
In the instant case, claimants were found guilty of failing to comply
with General Regulations B and C of the Rules, Regulations, Safety Rules and
Instructions Governing P:Iechanical Department Employees and suspended from
service for thirty (30) days, effective the close of shift August 30,
1977.
This disposition is now before use
In r evies.;-:*Lng the substantive aspects of this case., we recognize, of
course, the technical n-,ture of the repair f,;ilich is at issue in this di=_te
and the di.ie:a.lty in
a~:.'.'.,;'=:;
to reconstruct the iDreci se pattern of events
that led up to the derai:L:ent of train
235
on ju7:j 21, 1977.
But we believe that the derailment ":vas caused by the brahe bean
coming dorm on ST ;ii
61630,
the first car behind the engine.
Inasmuch as we can understand cla-1nants' rationale for cutting off:
the safety sunbort for the br°",-:e bean, parti cul arty i n view ox" the power
plant failure and the di~yicvlty of cutting the two ('?) bolts that secure
the safety support, we find th- ,t they understood the -implication.s o " thi s
approach, and thus to sci_e extent, bear a res =sibility for the re m'ult.
We do not find, on the other hand, that claimants .:i3ji_11y elected
to cut off the safety support to save tire or to avoid their responsibility,
We agree with claimants that the thirty (30) days suspension penalty
is somewhat excessive, when neasured against the ci rc,.'stances of their
performance and thus we will reduce it to five (5) days. This modification
does not include the six
(6)
percent interest additionally clai"led for ti-e
lost.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent expressed in the opinion.
MTIO-?AL EUILROAD ADJUST1.-E,771 B0_JRD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: rYecutive Secretary
national Railroad ~Ad~d -u-s tt Board
.T~y _',.
,.'. _,.-r,1--_.~_,
~s'''s.fa,.. _ _ ..-^`. ., _.»..a _
i
Dated at Ch:~cago, Illinois,
this 2'Tth d:_:y of centc-::Oer,
151'9.