Form 1 NATIOINLZ RA=OAD AD~TLJYST2·227T BOARD Award 11o.
81 f;-9
SECONi) DIVISION Docket No.
8065
2-CU77-J-FO-'
79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when a~.rard was rendered.
( System Federation Wo.
76,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of T,. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Disrute : ( (Firemen & Oilers
(
( Chicago and North western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Emaloyes:
1. Under the current controlling Agreement, 1Ir, ;?. Abdur-Rahman,
Hostler Helper, Chicago, Illinois, vas unfairly dealt -vrith when
suspended from service of the Chica jo and TTorti-r~restern Transportation
Cur:par~y, effective Februarir
4, 1978.
2. That, accordingly, the Chicago and Horthwestern TM.,nsbortwtion
Comr,.n: , be ordered to reinstate 11r. H. Abdur-Rarunan to sex-,rice
with seniori-.t~:r
rights
un-2112
paired, coapensate for all ti_zne lost
invludinz f ri n-o bene:L i t
S,
and verlova the I:1ark from his personal
record.
Fi~nci-in
Is ._
The Second Di of the Adjustx-~ient Board, upon the i-;hole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved i n this
dispute are respectively carrier and empleve within -the mea pin y of 'the
Railway Tabor Act as approved June 21,
1984.
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, a Hostler Helper in carrier's Proviso Diesel. Si:ops _,_n Chicago,
Illinois, i-,ras discliar<;ed from service on F'e'bruary
4, 1978,
for failure -to
protect assigrznent, addressirgr abusive language to the foreman, arid being
absent without authcr-ity.
The oro~anizati on contends that carrier dealt unjustly with claimant and.
that discharge should riot be sustained, A:; review of the record before this
Board reveals that clainant saes, in fact, 1 ate for worlr> on the day in question.
It is also clear that lie did use abusive lan;aaia ge toward his foreman.
Statements made 'by cla:hiant to his foreman cannot, by any standard, be
considered shop tall,, as the organi,ation clai:i's. Test:i..':"0ny of fore-: an
Vaca at the invest igat~_on into the ch_,.r-es aTuin t cl ainant we- 131i i-Le-av.'.f~''
against the shop tallz tieory. The record reveals 'that claimant did u;se
excessively abusive lanuage. His statements ';o the for~,2~ian do constitute
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 8149
Docket No. 8065
2-C&'N1q-FO-'
79
verbal threats. Under such circunstances, a carrier has legitimate cause
to discipline a claimant. Only the severity of the penalty remains to be
considered by this Board.
A review of claizaant's work record, as outlined in carrier's submiss"on,
indicates that claimant is an employee who has not, since his employment
in
1974,-
been able to comply with rules and reg-alations of the railroad or
learn from his rrevious encounters with discipline.
Since
1974,
he has been reprimanded, suspended from service, and
discharged for time arid atte,ldance irfr-ctio ns. lie eras reinstated without
pay after ten months, subsequent to his first discharge. He was suspended
for 30 days -`'cr '1'a-' -are to cu:::ply .,;-ith instruct -ons. In the present instance,
-
carrier has done everything possible to impress
uzDon
claimant the fact that
he should ch.n~-e his behavior and become a i'Forth'?Thile employee. Cla'1mant has
not responded to carrier's efforts. Claimant's work record shows zoo indication
that he has learned by his past mista:>es. The record of this case shows
no indication that he ~-ri ll chanLe his behavior in the future. No employer
should be required by any arbitrator or arbitrat-i on tribunal to continue
a worker with ,such a record :in its employ.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATTOTA Z RAI1.R0AD ADJUST?.ET'r BOARD
By Order of Second Division
~--1,Bra,sch - Ad-raindstrative assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of Oct6eer,
1979.