Form 1 ~TPTT0KJL RAIZR OAD ADJUST?.111T BOARD Azrard No. 82n~
SECOM DIVISION Docket No.
6164
2-SIB'-CM-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular meribers and in
addition Referee Kay 7Jc_.lurr a y when award -was rendered.
( System Federation No. 1&2, Railway Employes'
Department,
A. t'
. of
L. - C
. I. 0.
Parties to Dismte·
( (Carmen)
(
( Southern Faci fic Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim _Claim of
nnnlo7,res:
That the Southern 1'a cific Transportation Cu_peny (Texas and ouisian.i
Lines) violated Rules
34
and 28 Of the ~:pt~: heir servic
controllf :- a r eerrent when t?.'.y
anju s i-l1y d.L .°.
:1 N
sed C::"',an
'tee.
u
e
n a.uim:an P. 0. Aleman n;oer .__
1977,
follo,~drg investiE,;tion held on ~`.ust
24, 1977.
2. That accordingly, the Southern Pa:ci f=.c Transportation Company (Teyas
and Louisiana Lines) Ije nrdertd
t0
re=ustW~ rj Carnan ?11~:"'tan to
SerJ'~.C
with senior i tz' r
c
~~12n''~:r.^,7.red ; cu?:Jensa t:: 'ni:n for aLL t =._.~ l OS
- Since
August
3, 1~-'-t7; ._~`:=a .__ . , ,;holr,:
for a-i
1. v4
canon
rights
and -for an
rj-rIe_r
benefits h°
S7ould
h_ve
earnC:
1
d.ar i n
r~
the ti "ie he is held uuu~ of servIce.
Fi nd.in
-s
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, anon the iAThole record and all.
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and . tte empl oye or enrloyes involved i n this ci r gate
are respectively carrier and e._n3_oye <<,2th-in the ?neanin- of theai1;:r~Zr i_jabor
_Q2-5
as approved June 21,
193.
This Division of the Ac14as tr.ent Board has juxisd-.c `ion o%rer the disuate
involved herein.
Parties to said di3pute T-roved right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The claimant, Mr. p. 0. Alenan, eras hired by the Carrier as an apprentice en
May
23 , 1977
.
._
A letter dated "Lu.-,ust
3
of the swore year notified hi:: that 1le had no',.- shai..-n
aptitude to learn the trade
vY_*,`LI-_,4n
his
f-ir
rt,
5e:. Ji
ce ne_'iod
O-E'
~.:='~ days, : rd
therefore he
?·TOUZd
not be ~'e` wined in Se^L T?.ce as an a_ Jr ent1ce.
a'hc
~t'.,';-_?=:.~c~t1017
e ,-+
. c ~ ' ... '
and
Cl
.,...._..,..1t
regh
S-C:eCt
an
il1V
.~....=;c.
ti
On
.?'!
='~cCQY'd~ai..Gy
i~.~.'Gh
con-G.
,-:C:
~~..1
r; r-h-u
and th~t he-,rln;- «"'S comnleted on _.:~i(~"'L7.~'G-: , 19 77. :::F.: r.a rr 1.Gr adv ised ia'. A.°:."-':an
by letter one:t:?:'per 29, arh at he was dis:qyssed from s~:rvice.
There is a re:?_orandttm of agreement b.et!reen the n~.rties i-;h:.ch estc-~blishes an
apprenticeship pro-ran. in order t0 11?il?'r0't"f: the 'd,vailt.Jility of cu;_re:,e'1t, sI..illed
j =" II`.'. j% T:1:: n.
The Carrier relies upon -fiule 39(g) of that doclu-ent to
justify the t~i~l ~.SSal.
The rule reads i n pertinent part:
Form 1
Page 2
Award No.
8263
Docket
i,To.
8164
2-SFi'-CP.I-' 80
"If within the first service period of 122 days an
apprentice sho-7s no aptitude to learn the trade, he
will not be retained as an apprentice."
In assessing the penalty, the Carrier points to the Evaluation Performance
Sheet filled out by the car fox'eznn. The or g«ni ration rebuts that assessment 'ay
testimony of the lead inspector. It is sufificient to note that there is
conflicting testimony regarding the aptitude of the claimant,
The record reveals that 1.1r, A leman s hired as an arprentice on li`ay 23,
1977,
given one ;reek o*' schoolin and promoted to carman on June 8. Rule A(b) of
the memorandumi of a reement provides among other things, that the firs-c, sixty
days of trainin7 :,rill. consist of general orientation and theoretical trainin:::; in
the craft for ;-rhich he was hired. There is nothing in the record to indic_,te that
such an ono~'tu_nit7;-
;;tea
-i'~'orded the claimant. The foregoi ng illustrates the
problem.. The remorandum of agreement provides for a rather co^?oreh°nsive procedure
of traininc,' .,'hick, the r(-cord _ndica,tes- -v,-as not afforded
='S.'. Al~:.'::2.n.
1;o-le 3')
does no,;, stand alone land the Carri,--r cannot r
e:-ll
upon that provision unless it
has fulfilled. in a reasonable fashion, the
obl
i-a-".,ions :>pelled out in :he othur
sections of the a re--nt_
Th
i- Board
'?..S
of the oo`_nion that the C1 ay:_ant
i.5
entitled to another op;-ortwai ty to qualiT'',~ fox ,-;or k i-rith the Carr;_ex.
There are in -she record scr~e problems ~,hich are of lE~Uitir.~ate concern to the
that they
7 1
''
Carrier.
It ':r012ld b.°, a reasonable `u.S3-7;nptvn
th_.
~..~..~'G they are _.
'X'.t
Ci..~ndL'd in the
1 1_
the
personal 'aroultaP. _nhorC-n.. in the
d:ji
_tn~'.
t, rU:n ?:'__11:.-.2'w aSSi.`
'L:.n~ ~o civilian industrial .,rorld.
The
olin-'=nt has suffered economic
~loSS
during his
period of discharge and. it is presu:.ied that such penalty
S,
-ill be remed-ia1` in
nature.
A Ted A R
D
The claixant i:~'.11 be retul'ned to service -Irish the Carrier a> an apprentice
v'thout pay for ti:ne lost. Successi,_'ul connict-on of the arnrent-ice d
a - -'- L, rerilo
z ,~..ll
provide the seniority date to I-rhich he vrotlld have been entitled had the presen.L
removal frcr service not occurred.
NATIG1TAT RA=-,D ADJUTi~Z'HBOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
Natwonal Rails°oad Adjustment Board
,.~iit
_., __; , _ -w
~~
FtoseTeai·--i _<:
:~1
ascz
- r
:~L:n~
r.1rs°c'r~.-t
``re
~s s s
Dated at Chic~wgo, ILi m'_s, this 5th day of I,'arch,
1980.