Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSnJENT BOARD Award No.
8495
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7964
2 -EJ&E -CM-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United
( States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company, hereinafter referred
to as the Carrier, improperly suspended Carman Ronald D. Courtney,
hereinafter referred to as Claimant, for a thirty-day period commencing
August
17, 1977
through September 25,
1977
as a result of an investiga
tion held on July
27, 1977.
Said suspension is in violation of Agreement
Rules 100 and 116 as well as being arbitrary, capricious, unfair,
unjust, unreasonable and an abuse of managerial discretion.
2. That the Carrier be ordered to compensate Claimant for eight hours pay
at the pro rata rate for each day of the thirty day suspension and that
his seniority and vacation rights be unimpaired.
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.
The organization contends that the thirty (30) days suspension penalty was
arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and a violation of Agreement Rules 100 and
116.
Carrier disputes these assertions.
Our review of the record indicates that the investigative hearing held on
July 27, 1977
to determine claimant's responsibility in connection with the charges
set forth in the July
19, 1977
disciplinary notice was properly conducted. We find
nothing in the investigative transcript which shows that the hearing was biased
or inconsistent with our judicial principles and standards.
Similarly, we agree with carrier's argument that the delineation of a
specific contract rule in the statement of charges is not a procedural necessity.
The allegation contained in the notice of hearing were unambiguous and more
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 8495
Docket No.
7964
2 -EJ&E -CM-'
80
than sufficient to provide claimant a reasonable opportunity to prepare his
defense. In Second Division Award 6346 which is pertinent to this dispute,
we clearly noted our position on this type of issue.
There we held that "a review of the carrier's notice of hearing shows the
circumstances were adequately described. The carrier's allegations in the
notice alerted the claimant to the nature of the case so he could properly
prepare his defense. The claimant was quite aware that he was being charged with
misconduct and the carrier was following established procedures under the Agreement
for processing disciplinary cases". Based on the record and on our decisional
precedents, we must reject the procedural objections raised.
Correlatively, regarding petitioner's substantive arguments and position,
we find nothing in the record which reasonably demonstrates that he complied
with carrier's attendance and reporting requirements. He had been repeatedly
warned about his poor attendance record and granted leniency from an investigation
scheduled for March 12, 1976. He was suspended for ten (10) days following an
investigation held on July 22, 1976, which was deferred because of his personal
financial condition and was again charged for similar infractions in the instant:
dispute.
The thirty (30) days suspension penalty was not unreasonable, arbitrary or
an abuse of managerial discretion, when measured against claimant's work record_
Instead it reflected more an effort on the part of carrier to prescribe
rehabilitative discipline. Hopefully, claimant will make the requisite attitudira1
adjustments necessitated by his employment and contribute to the well being
of this industry. Accordingly we must reject this claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By ,/°..`~..~ ~'~!''/'.._.._
Ro emarie Brasch - Admlnlst~lrative Assistant
Dated t Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of November,
1980