Form 1 sMZONAL rfxzROAD ADJITTr::"17 1 130^a-T" Award No.
8130
sECOIID
DrvrSzo:T
DocKet
pro. u019
2-U&W'-FO-
t
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular nembers and in
addition Referee Robert L. Fitz erald, Jr. when airard was rendered.
( System Federation Ho. 16, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F . of Z. - C. I.0.
Parties to Dispute:
( (Firemen & Oilers)
Norfolk Norfolk
and ,·1es tern Iailvay Company
Dispute:
Clam
of Flail oyes
1. That under the current agreement Laborer F. N. W:iltzerson iras
unjustly assessed a fifteen (15) day deferred. suspension on
July 25, 1977. As a result of a second roves brat i an, held on
the salae day, i-Lr, 1?i U:e csi.°.n'5 fife_-cn (1_C
) C_~.!,~j
d.
_WAt.I,='ed Nusnen1won
becza=:e an <`wctual sus tension fro-
y-1!:'
serv'_co of ti.ia rai lro;:.d.
2. That I,alaorer F. I·T. ~~.~'=erson ~.,:as unjustly and un~easonably held
out of s ervice pen.?i n`; :i_nvesty~ation.
3.
That 2."cordn~.-ly "I:° Carry.er be ordcc='ed
~O
t
rElJi, _nl7rl
.jS ncl,.,
,,
~oue this e:n-clo- `-e
and 3'.':a$e
I1~.T:d
?':"l~le for all :1 o-t
i';';:L9;e5
7.nvcl".red ii: this
f'a-'.Zut7-.~.'_'1S.011
i n,C;11''uiY'_c~
'~,' _~t'.Oil
1' ~ntS, _,.'i l,Y·'~-''i;,.~ai=c ':.e'2'G
bencfit3,
.aiC::.i7-
.°beneilts, aa. an:" oianer br: nef- ts he
:IC'J
. have eari1ed
wnicn
were
lost as a
r8 >171t Of'.
!'T. l'a;i.lLer',oil°S »uspensiofi.
Findin
gs
The Second Division of the i1djustnIerit Board, ucon the whole record and
a1.1 the evidence, finds that::
The carrier or carriers and the emnloye or e:ployes involved in this
dispute are ~`especti,V-e?- carrier and enoloye within the neanin,~ of the
Railv,y Labor Act as an-;:.^oved
7
- ,une 21, 1 34.
This Division of the Adjustment I,,oard has jurisdiction over the distote
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute t,·raived r-ic;ht of appearance at hearing thereon.
This case :rose because: the carrier issued a deferr·e-I suspension of
15 c_ays to the clainwnt a.t a .~eet'.:^..- ?;e-_~. on ~iv1~; 25, 1c~r7. she clai:.;
involves only the propriety
O.·
the ;:'..~'^-i er
t S
.-s
mu`wnce of .-he 15
da.'S
ae:f err a d
sus:n"^_nNion and does not ir:T;olve t ,. h.. later . -nosition of the 15 days
suspension -at a s-Liesecaue:-t neetin,73 on that date.
Form 1 Award No.
0130
Page 2 Docket No.
8010,
2-1,12N-FO-
1
79
In this case, as is found in most discipline cases which come to our
Board for appellate review, petitioner has advanced a number of all ^a-snts
that amount to nothi nz more or less than a request that this Board substitute
its judtpient for that of the Carrier on the issues of guilt and dise_nline.
A71. Divisions of this Board have cons is tently recognized the fact that
Carriers owe to a-iPloy a s, and to the public, a heavy legal obligation to
maintain discinl ine --:ong those in their ear-ploy, and i t vou1d be both
illegal and improper for this Board to aztez_mt to impose an;,- restriction
upon a Carrier's complete f reedo:n in disci nl inary matters e.=cent to the
extent of recognizing and applying restrictions created by an applicable
labor agreement. Other-,vise, we do not substitute our jud~;nent for tlf_at of
Carrier; we do not weigh evidence; we do not attempt to resolve conflicts
in testimony; we do not pass upon the credibility of T,ritnesses. One of the
more lucid expression rendered i n th`-_s regard is found in Third Division
Award 1'!O.
Jv3~,,
.,'fie:rea.il judge
eJ.
C. Fa=r_ex" stated:
"-x-;f-x- Our .Unction in d_scipline ccLses is not to
substi-11-ute our jua-:-nt for tle co:,-c-,any or decide
the
natter _n accord vlit -,.-hat ,; a
r_i,~;~lt ai.^
not h?:':.1. it
'1
~ L
.,.ro
~ had .:~ t
bell,n ours to d,::te}::x;_ne, but to
'-~, _ done .._~ ~.
1 __
-oars anon the question
,r._n:7-
°!^, 'v,' ---01.1.
._- __!'a'_" l.t,
there i_- scz _.° sub:
t- -ial
r~ ~~e to : us-,_ .-n _. finding
of guilty. once that. --s dvcid_d in the
affi=at`_ve the
penalt~ _. .~os=d for the
v_olat._Lon _s
a natter vmicli rests in "lie Sound d~_.scretion of tile
Co::1paTy
and
~..,e
are ?'lot
T.ia
rn~-.nted in di::urbinit
unless we c-
an say it cie_.r1y _ '~t:?'_r
S
fro=:: the r.3corQ
~- r
Ti'. re"-,13
r'r,P
';Yx O
Unjust,
that i .~ ct~on ~h ._ ,rect- ~ eretos unreaso::a:bae or aL~;,itr ^ x';; as to constitute an abuse
of t'lat discretion.
-< ~'
~~''' (Underscore
ours)
Further, i t eras stated i n Second Division k,,,Tara Ho.
689
(Ber~::an),
where ere found:
"Although the evidence has been discussed, it does not
mean that .;e could suos ti Lute our Jud,--,-ent for that of
the Carrier. T11e precc-dent for this ;)clzcy is over~:hcl'^:~nn r;.r~.ox_.w°ard.c .:either do we ;;it to do
equity. We all:: n a^pellate body, in effect, to x^eview
the record and
consider
the content'_ons of the parties.
We
..U.WC.for
etJ'_denC.- of
"'''-'t.'..,-"_,~-,-~.=.'C.'l'.S:'
of du.scret -1on,
arbit-,rai;y or ca_,ricious ::,coon --1rxxich
could Icwd
to a
reversal on those ground. t'"e do not resolve zonfl icts
j.n te~ ~~: _:_on; unless trio:
,i1-_
_~-ent made ray -fall _.nto
the
cwCE_-,cries
listed above.. ·:s indicated, ,.;e find
~r'
re
t
su.'ost,r.:.ti.al evidence to sunrov^i; th__e conclusion achedr
Form 1
e3
as fo1'Lo,s
Az:Tard No. 81^0
Docket lo.
8019
2-1~18~vT-FO-'
79
See also Second Division Award Nos.:
7802 (RouLis
7473 (T",Teu.SS )
7437 (r.,,'cBrearty)
7363
(T~:-omey)
7278 01,:arx)
7122
(rischen)
7103 (O'Brien)
6866
(7,=as )
6525
(franden)
6408
(Ziebertran)
The reference to "substantial evidence" -.n A-vrard lTo.
5032
is significant_
2n railroad discipline cases, the C terrier is not bound to `Drove justification
beyond a reasonable doub t, as in a crL:_inal case, or even by a preponderance
of the evidence as does the party havin.; the burden of proof in a civil
case. The rule s that there must be sLtbstantial evidence in support of
the Carrier's actions.
Substantial evidcnee ws set forth by the United States Suprene Court
"Svbstanti wl c=vidence is -.,I.ox-e than a r-cre scintilla. it
means such r.~.l::v'';.,:1`~:
e'st:LCi.C_Y'3.:~;:
as
c".. '.'.:a:SOil:_'C1C:
:TLnd :li--llt
accent ~ as a.;?~ ·~
~~, : to 'L7. _ .. v
_. crt~S;Jlc~_~a.._c>n. (Consol. Ed.
C o. v. T.n;;oc;;.
:r:::~^:z 305
in this case we
r~L
t--W':i n,_; abo~ t- a 15-.3t~.;,- deferred.
Suspension, frha.ch
teas assessed follu-.;4.nil;.~ r_r!; :'~t-
..a.ch
:::ore than evid~:-nce
was
adduced to
r~?'ove til..:,t c:!~._._..=ant :;.~.: ~~Lt':1 v,,_- of conduct, to -1-astify the
deferred
Su,^. i1S:Lon.
'liler
.._'O:.^E~',
based
u"':):2
t-h`° foregoing
-,~T
the: clwi~N:, coonn etwin"t' the dC:"'^a1
~1.-~
~1 Y
. ;. _ deferred s~.t. _n~.o.l.
A VI A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: 7:xecutive Secreta-r
iTation,-a -; ~ 1 No°Ld .r.3 justlnen `~ ~_~os.rd
iTA~i'rQl:'LL :iA.IL
0D
lDJUST:.T'_ 1 BOAI:D
By Order of Second hi.vision
aOSE';.:,''-".r::_E
Y_ aci1
'~ _~1_' :1~_,~r~'.-iiVe. ..S:iiS'Gwn'L
Dated at C h1 ca-o,
T
ll:.~.rows, this 27th day o=
Id-
1979.