Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8W5
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8147
2-Rf&P-CM-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 4, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Cayman-tentative, R. B. Demas was unjustly dismissed from service
as result of investigation held in the office of the Master Mechanic
on June
7, 1977
in violation of Rule
34
of the Shop Crafts Agreement.
2. Accordingly, Demas is entitled to be returned to service with
seniority rights unimpaired and compensated for all lost wages
commencing July
9, 1977
to include
6%o
annum. interest, plus all
benefits and insurance accruing to other employes in service, utnt:U
Demas is returned to service.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
An investigation was held on June
7, 1977
to determine whether Claimant:
failed to oil journal boxes on cars scheduled for departure on train
105
on
May
31, 1977,
after personally being instructed to do so on May
30, 1977,
and
his correlative failure to comply with the Master Mechanics larch
13, 1975
directive relative to this maintenance function. On
July 7, 1977,
he was apprised
by the Master Mechanic, that the investigative record clearly sustained the
aforesaid specifications and he was dismissed from service, effective,
July 8,
1977.
This disposition is presently before us on appeal.
In our review of the investigative transcript, particularly the testimony
of Permanent Car Inspector Sutton and Supervisor of Mechanical Equipment
Gallahan, we find the evidence conclusive relative to the Claimant's failure: to
oil the journal boxes on the drop ins on Tracks on 15 and
17.
In toto, they
represent eleven cars on Train
105
that should have been serviced by Claimaxrt.
He did not offer a plausible explanation for such dereliction and his contention
that Rule
105
was not observed is without persuasive merit. This rule has no
Foxzn 1 Award No.
8405
Page
2
Docket No.
8147
2-RF8aP-CM- 180
relevance to this dispute since the servicing of journal boxes, in this instance,
did not require blue flag protection and the dry boxes were located on tracks
that had been blocked out.
Claimant was found guilty of a very serious offense which when coupled with
his prior service record, justified the penalty imposed. It would be contrary
to both parties' interests, if we countenance such deportment, especiaLLy when
safe operations is a primary objective in rail transportation.
As we are constrained by the record to affirm this decision, we believe
that the purposes of discipline have been served by his dismissal to date and
we will direct that he be reinstated without back pay on a leniency basis. We
advise the Claimant, however, that we will not look kindly upon any recidivist
behavior and expect that he will diligently observe all the safety rules and
regulations governing his work assignments.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent expressed herein.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Secord Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this
23rd day of July, 1980.