Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIENT BOARD Award No.
8775
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8061
2-MP-MA-181.
The Second Division consisted of the vegular members and in
addition Referee George E. Larney when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists
Parties to Dispute: ( and Aerospace Workers
( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated the controlling
Agreement, particularly Rule
32,
when they unjustly dismissed Machinist
C. C. Jones from service on March
30, 1977
for allegedly leaving his
assignment at approximately
8:00
p.m., February
13, 1977,
without: proper
authority and being absent from his assignment since that date without
proper authority.
2. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to
compensate Machinist C. C. Jones at the pro rata rate of pay for each
work day beginning March
30, 1977
until he
is
reinstated to service. In
addition, he shall receive all benefits accruing to any other employee
in active service, including vacation rights and seniority unimpaired.
3.
Claim is also made for Machinist C. C. Jones's actual loss of payment of
insurance on his dependents and hospital benefits for himself, and that
he be made whole for pension benefits, including Railroad Retirement and
Unemployment Insurance.
4.
In addition to the money claimed herein, the Carrier shall payifachinist
C. C. Jones an additional sum of
6%
per annum, compounded annually on the
anniversary date of said claim in addition to any other wages earned
elsewhere in order that he be made whole.
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 Adjustmept Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
In Award
8250,
the Board found that due to a procedural error committed by
the Carrier in handling the initial claim of Machinist C. C. Jones, who had been
dismissed from service for allegedly leaving his assignment without proper
authority and for continuing to be absent from his assignment without proper
F orm 1 Award No.
877'.5
Page 2 Docket No. 8061
2-MP-MA-'81
authority, Carrier had breached the controlling agreement and accordingly was
liable for the payment of any fLnancial loss suffered by the Claimant: as a result
of Carrier's action. In so finding, we remanded back to the parties the task of
determining the proper monetary sum due
the
Claimant with the stipulation that: if
the parties were unable to mutually resolve the issue, the matter would revert: back
to the Board for final determination. Through subsequent written correspondence to
the Board, the parties acknowledged that following several attempts to resolve the
matter, they were unable to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement and therefore
requested the Board, in accordance with its ruling in Award 8250, to make a final
determination.
Based on calculations it initially made subsequent adjustments to those
figures as a result of information proffered by the organization, and further
tak;ng into account various deductions it deemed proper, the Carrier's final
position as to the proper monetary sum due the Claimant before the payment taxes,
was the amount of $12,174.85. The Organization on the other hand, takes exception
to
all
the deductions but one and submits the Claimant is entitled to the grand
monetary sum of $23,039.54 before taxes.
Upon a review of Award No. 8250 and all the additional evidence of record
proffered to the Board by the parties, we make the following findings:
1. In subjecting Award No. 8250 to close scrutiny, we have uncovered
an error, most likely attributable to typing, in the first sentence
of point
3
on page
3.
The word agree, in the second line of the
sentence should have read disagree. It can readily be ascertained that
the word agree is grammatically inconsistent with the use of the word
but
preceeding it. If the word agree had been the intended term,
then the but would have been the conjunction and. In context with
the first point wherein the Board specifically noted the Claimant's
previous attendance record was far from exemplary, the Board intended
this to be a factor in the calculation of the proper monetary sum due
the Claimant and therefore the first sentence of point
3
should have
read as follows:
"With regard to point 2 above, the Board agrees there
has been a breach of contract but must
disagree with
the position of the Organization that Carrier must accept
the full financial responsibility for this breach."
2. In analyzing the calculations made by Carrier and taking into accouit
what was originally intended by us but unfortunately was not accurately
conveyed in Award 8250, we are satisfied Carrier has adhered to the
appropriate guidelines set forth by us and taken into account the
appropriate considerations at arriving at a monetary sun proper for
purposes of compensating the Claimant for the financial loss suffered by
him as a result of Carrier's action.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
8'775
Docket No.
8061
2-MP-MA-'8]L
A WAR D
Upon remand of the subject .impasse by the parties to the Board we fixd the
Clai;nant is entitled to receive as compensation for the financial loss suffered by
him as a result of Carrier's action, the sum of $12,174.85.
Claim sustained to the extent set forth in the findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Atteet: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By _
IUDs~emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of October,
1981.