Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUTMENT BOARD Award No.
8241
SECOND DIVISION Docket 1do.
8196
2-WT-CM-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
( System Federation lTo. 106, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0...
Parties to Dispute:
( (Carmen)
(
( Washington Terminal Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Washington Terminal Company violated rule 29 of the controlling
agreement when Ronnie E. Corbin was unjustly suspended from the service
on Tuesday February 21,
1978.
Then sit))secfaently dismissed April 10;
1978.
Later on Septenber
18, 19713,
he was restored to service
wi
thout
pay for tine lost.
2. That accordingly The Washington Terminal Company be ordered to reimburse
Claimant Ronnie E. Corbin for all time he was caused to lose by this
unjust suspension and dismissal and the charges be expunged from his
record.
Findings:
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 employes involved in this disrnxte
are respectively carrier and employe v: ithin the meaning of the Railway Labor :,:: t
as approved June 21, 1934.
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 was suspended from service on February 21, 1978 and, folloyrins an
investigative hearing,
zms
dismissed from service on April 10,
1978
for violat_on
of various port;.ons o= Rule ".1T". Tile charge involved attempting "to enter kitcilen
area of Amtrak Diner 8320, Train
440
in Trach 28 by banging on the door with a
large red wrench".
The Board finds that the hearing was conducted in a fair and proper manner
in two sessions and that the Claimant and his representatives had full opportunity
for defense.
The Board finds no basis on which to question the Carrier's judgment that the
Claimant zras attemnti h~ a_.:oroper and forc'"--IP entry into the d:! ner 1:i tchen, as
directly obser;red by a Carrier Fol ice Officer. Llaii:^_ an_t's
explanation
of the
justification
for his
pretence
ate.,
the
door is not crudible. tlltl-ough a later co°art
trial resulted in acquittal of the Claimant, it is well established that such
court actions -- whether favorable or unfavorable to the defendant -- do not
necessarily control or limit disciplinai7 investigation and penalty by the employer.
Form 1 Award No. 8241
Page 2 Docket No. 8196
2-WT-CM-t80
The charges, as proved to the Carrier's satisfaction from the investigativE
hearing, warrant a penalty of dismissal.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMEIY' BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
~' Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Datedt
Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of January
1980.