Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8752
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 83TT
2-MP-MA-'81
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Paul C. Carter when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers



Dispute: Claim of Employes:



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 herein was employed as machinist helper at Carrier's Mechanical Facility at Fort Worth, Texas, and had about two and one half years of service. On the night of January 18, 1978, and early morning of January 19, 1978, from 11:30 P.M. to 7:30 A.M., claimant was assigned to work at Carrier's Diesel facility. On January 30, 1978, he was notified to report for formal investigation:




Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 8752
Docket No. 8377
2-MP-MA-'81

The investigation was conducted on February 7, 1978, as scheduled. Claimant was present throughout the investigation and was represented. A copy of the transcript of the investigation has been made a part of the record. We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the investigation and the entire record before the Board. We find that the investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. On February 13, 1978, claimant was notified of his dismissal from service.

In the investigation a supervisor stated that he had signed another employe's name to the lubrication records for Units 2561 and 2540. The Organization contends that when the lubrication records were checked by claimant Johnson and he found that another employe's name indicated the particular units had been worked, he was not obligated to recheck the lubrication on those units unless he was specifically told to do so and that he was not told to lubricate the specific units involved.

It is unfortunate that a derailment occurred, causing considerable damage, which apparently resulted from Unit 2540 not being properly lubricated.

After a thorough examination of the entire record in the case, we find the evidence not sufficiently convincing to satisfy the Board that the requisite degree of proof, or substantial evidence, has been presented to support the disciplinary action against the claimant.

The record shows that the claimant was reinstated to service as a machinist helper on January 12, 1979. We will award that he be paid for time lost from date of dismissal to date of reinstatement, less any amount that he may have earned in other employment during that period. There is no rule support for the 6PI, per annum interest claimed, and that portion of the claim is denied.

A W A R 'D

Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Findings.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By



Dat ;4at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of September, 1981.