Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8688
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8307
2-N&W-CM-'81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee M. D. Lyden when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Norfolk & Western Railway Company violated the controlling
agreement of September 1, 1949, as subsequently amended, when on June
lE>,
1977 Car Repairers E. L. Heilig and P. T. Seagle were given a formal
investigation resulting in an arbitrary and capricious assessment of
five (5) day deferred suspension against their service record, and Carwm
P. T. Seagle was required to serve a five
(5)
day suspension resulting
from a previous investigation.
2. That the investigation was improperly arrived at and represents unjust
treatment within the meaning and intent of Rule NO:-
37 - of
"'he-controlling
agreement.
3. That because of such violation and capricious action, the Norfolk &
Western Railway Company be ordered to
(a) remove such five
(5)
day deferred suspension from E. L. Heilig's
and P. T. Seagle's service record, and
(b) compensate P. T. Seagle for all time lost (July 23 through
August 1, 1977) plus 7% interest.
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.
A review of the information on formal investigation reveals it to be fair
and impartial. Testimony validated that the chains were not properly secured in
the side pockets. The claimants were properly charged with the inspection of the
out-bound train and also their inspection of TTHX 97129 when it first arrived. The
photos taken by assistant Foreman Hill showing the chains were not secure as well
as the testimony of Mr. Hill do provide sufficient evidence to conclude the
claimants guilty as charged. The chains were not secured either in the pockets
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 8688
Docket No.
8307
2-N&W-CM-`81
or nailed to the deck of the car. The two employees failed to inspect the cars
for which they were responsible. Considering the loose chains could have caused
a derailment, the discipline was not harsh or capricious.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
BY _ _ r~
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April, 1981.