Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST= BOARD Award No. $2'78
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8162
2-IC GFO-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and
in addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 99, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Partio-s to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)



Dispute: Claim of Employees:






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 dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The claimant, Mr. L. E. Hi71, is a laborer for the carrier. On April 4, 1978, he was given a notice of hearing which read in pertinent part:



The hearing proceeded as planned and resulted in the dismissal from service herein complained of.

The claimant and organization readily concede that he was sleeping on duty as charged. As a defense they point out that Mr. Hill had pyorrhea of the gums and had taken several tylenol which caused him to be drowsy and therefore his sleep
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 8278

Docket No. 8162

2-ICG-FO-180


was caused by a condition beyond his control. They further contend that the claimant was not abusive or threatening and the carrier failed to produce any witness other than the mechanical foreman who could testify to such actions.

The record indicates that it was very difficult to awaken the defendant. The foreman first tried to awaken him by calling him by name several times. He then left the cab and obtained a witness. These two successfully aroused him but he imiedediately fell asleep again. The foreman upon advice frcm his superior again went to the engine cab with a policeman. These two successfully awakened the claimant and he left the property. Mr. Hill testified that he had taken several tylenol before going to work and was aware that such medication made him drowsy. He did mention to his supervisor that he had taken some tylenol but failed to inform him that this relatively harmless drug could. produce the effect herein noted. The claimant, in further testimony, indicated that he had very little recollection of being awakened the first time. He was obviously in a very confused state of mind and it is clear that the medication he had taken greatly affected his performance. With respect to the argumentative and abusive language, Mr. Hill testified that he might have been a little loud and did say that the foreman was prejudiced but didn't believe he had made all the statements claimed by the supervisor. In view of the condition of the claimant at the time as revealed by the record, this Board must give credence to the testimony of the supervisor.


devised to protect him as well as other employees and assure a productive
operation. The carrier was justified in assessing disciplinary penalty. Based wool
on the entire record we are unable to conclude that the penalty constituted
arbitrary or unjust action.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

NATICN'AZ RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


l

By
~emarie Brasch - Adminizstrativ-..P -A -., ~ ~


Dated `at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of March, 1980,