Form 1 TTATIO11ZAL RAILROAD ADJUSTPIEM BOARD Award Ko. 8265
SECOND DIVISION Docket 1','O; 8202
2-S00-CM-`80

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Herbert Lo Marx, Jr. when a~,7ard S-ras rendered.

System Federation ado. 7, Railvray Er:pl oyes t

Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Disrute: ( (Carmen)

Dispute: Claim. of Frinlo-yes:

( Sao Line Railroad Company.

Caxnaan Karl Laszewski, Stevens Point, Wis., is elai.'ring to have (letter

or repr_x_.Vnd .. which ne received irczti T

.x'. :3.) rrruoved from his r· eY son?1file, G.

Foote, i'·~-3.ra"..ger of L. fix. C. Services, in regard to investigation 0, 1T-4ov.
1977, S'In4_.Ch the a.:00 L i-n8 -E.-E. 011° r geC'1. e:?:YJIO j''H-'~. , "it 2.'.; (J.`3arS you '1&dE.' i10
effort t0 notify your ~^.r:~;~.:::c~,~.C:1.' Or s3.1'~T V?.e else w.n `.li:tlOr i ty that you vere
leaving," I:~,z;, K. Lasze;~Tshi clvi;rs that the Sao Tine ::.off',. failed to show ~'ura.en
of Proof of cha.r~;e, ~~1e 31 2, 32 Shop Cra~:t hgreer:ent sho'.Lld be ecntraLL;in,.o

Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board., Upon the 'sAiole record. and al:IL

v.,, evidence, finds that:

The carrI_er or cart i ers an,-'. the employ a or err_nl oyes involved in this c? is r:z:.e are respecvivelzr carrier and employe -Althin the i::eani ny of the Tnailz~r--;Iwbar i.ct as approved 10iLne 21, 1~34.

This Division of the Ad.ju.str.=ent Board has jurisdiction over the d-':_.r;ate involved herein.

l'arties to said dispute waived right of apreax'ancL at he4.r in` thereon.

Cla:~.ant iTas subject to an investigative hearIng, which n;-,s cOY1d'lcted in a fair and proper manner, on the faLov~i.ng, charge:

"To deteri?:`!.nE.' facts relative t0 your Off the job on Your
aSS1F~Y1r_":ent, 'Gig' J _1:.30 p.t0 7: J0 a.::'?, shift -in Stevens i=C~'! Tl
::to
yard about 2: l%J ~._:'~. On the i.'_OCni 'I Of _'O'TE;l:ber J' 1977. ! t
appe~,r.s yau _-.a(I.e no efi'o_'t to noti~- ~,raur --an- 1.°<~,der or a,yfone
else in ~3.L1.'G'YLOx'?.''a." `.hat V011 R.`C'.s°e ~ c:-?.~' _:2:;a -,,-our l`'aV:L.I"!g your job
did result: in delay's even t::augh we ;ad called are extra man
out on penalty time the beginning of the shift. "

Follo-~r;_n.- ; this disc~_`_y,~lirary herrin;, the Carrier issued a letter i'ri th
rt

-14 1,

referenCe t0 the 1xi1I::::t:~_F ~i~ i0.1 N~ at1:'?`% i~c C1iCally, _'0;J,. C`.- rS ,eau rade n0
effort to noti:.~,,r your gang leader or anyone else i n authorw ty that you vrere
leaving, rt
Form 1 Award TTo. 826,r-~

Fage 2 Docket Yo: 8202
2-S00--CI:-'-' 80

During the course of the dispute handling on the property, the Carrier's Director of Labor Relations wrote to the Organization in part as follows:

"Intensive review of the letter of reprimand did find a single sentence which might be dea::ed not z1~;r accurate. That sentence is: ` It appears you 7v_a,de no effort to notif~r your yn; leader o

r anyone else in authority that ,--cra ,;ere leaving.' In an effort to resolve this dic,_ '.te, the Carrier Las offered. to strike fron. the record that gentenL2. The F:,nloyces stated ''chat they would take this offer under consideration."

`

The Organization declined this offer, which would have left intact the 1 ette r of reprimand resulting fro:. the investi,wtion.

The Board fines no Wection whatsoever ;;o the Carrier's contention that it

letters rem9nUin-~ employes oi. rules Y, ?

may initiate _ _ ~ _ ble '_.es na regulations
concerning employe conduct- and, in ~::=.._ ., _;..'~ _., __..:,·___. , off duty.

ct' '

_ -~ ;l ·c ?1 this b.SIG,

argues the Carrico, there i- I . ~ '''b the ' "-" '

`: IO basis G`'~ ;i 'ii:LC:h ` ±.C disturb Claimant's tGC'.LiY'.:1.

now containing; both the reco'r'd of investigation and the subsequent reprimand
letter.

There · ,.,av . y,ore , here, ~ ' ~ 1 - im'~ -, r 'S^._. ., y~ -'.

There is, b.orer, nt: ,red '1iIe ._ Carrier d_ i~.d nor sr1

,,_, e~,._.,w_._ca-ce trith the ('la~.~:,n; to ..°eriind :.__t cf the necessnoy conformance to rules &n:l regulations. (See ,_.,=_1'i~. Zoo 8462 (Dennis) ore this point). instead, _t initiated an investigative hearing 2vnc the disciplinary procedure, thas sett-~.P:;" :n :-otion
the possibility L.Y' the disciplinary t' .

t _ (if t~ ,,. ,.e :!S _ resulting formal = naY'-r

X_~ t,nG charge proven) C-F' 7, r_ c..:.__J formal disciplinary
action.

An examination. of the investigative hearing records show that at the core
of the matte`s vraS the Claim, ,' s «~ r', ~~'l fa..1',.1:.'C t0 r~t_I proper authorities
in connection il'!th h5 leaving ,wor--,_ _.~ __..';'t, the Carrier, through _':,S _I?iC.ial'',
letter of 't."'prinandy found .;his charge to ire sustained. At c`3., later poet, ho::cve-'r,
the Director o7 Tabor Relations found othcrvr'a se.

Thus, the Board i s not dealing with a eo~rx.:an-1_cation from the Carrier to cne

of its eiaployeeS, but with the C~OT'1

results o. a ~Cr'~:=~.~ iu,% es tics ticn, Carrier

considered ,~ c. "discipline", as < ~ te ~ ,;y C'L'r7Ot''S COw'rGr n'~

such S1 results c..,.·.results :1~as ~.:::..i~·~.~ in ~~2,_ r.~C..G'v.c.

on the property and in its SubndS S ion t0 the Ward, as follows:

"The purpose of holding an investi.,-,ati,.on is to determine the facts.

Rasher ti seeing " l_ as punitive, ;'_ consider __e purpose

of dias _ _the purpose

of diee=ri:!;ne to be~eo2rcctT--." (-.-~nhasis added)

''The facts'', as later determined, failed to show that the principal charge was `00-aly accurate". 1i. folic-,,s the3.'e:1ore tn.at the results of the investiC Lion shows a failure to prove the Charg=e, and the Carrier should act accordingly.

Ya.d the Carrier s7~;1_p,zi CC::, ....~?'i."'..G..~E'.J. try the e';ployce to i;r-'.rn him concorn:n.'r r~r~l

rule the >e i ?' .~,~ ·-,a '-j ' - ·-, t 1; ~, t nn -j :, ',Y'.~y,·. r.e _ S

. _ _ , Q. Y lt _ _- l. :y, . y . ,a,

Form 1 Award T1o. 8261
Page 3 Docket No. 82012!
2-SOO-Caa_- 18o

A W A R D

Claim sustained.

TTATIO.~TAZ ILA=OAD ADJTUSTT,!.EITT R0=~nr

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secret"O.177
T,Yational Rai lr o'-,,d Adjustment Board

By , .:~_~-a .. ;= L,.Avw ,.~,T.c .' _ ._--`'-`-° _' .

I

Dated at Chicago, IL.i not s, this 5th day ow :. arch, 1880.