Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 88+1
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8792
2-SLSF-MA-181
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
(
( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
That Machinist R. E. Ratter was unjustly suspended from service four
(4)
days as the result of an investigation held June 20, 1979, relative to
charges as follows: (See Employes' Exhibit "A-2")
"You are being charged with alleged violation of Rule "B" of
the Rules, Regulations, Safety Rules and Instructions
Governing Mechanical Department Employes, Form MP-1 Standard
effective March 1, 1957 reading in Part as follows:
Employes who are negligent or indifferent to duty,
... will
not be retained in the service."
That as s result of failure to prove the charges, the Carrier improperly
disciplined Machinist R. E. Ratter, therefore, he should be paid all time
lost, and the reprimand should be stricken from his record.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds that:
the carrier or carriers and tae employe or employes involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and emplo-Ye within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act
as approved June 21, 193+.
This Division of the Adjustmefzt Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
This dispute involves a 4-day suspensicm against s machinist for his alleged
negligence and indifference to duty for failure to add oil and water to certain
locomotive units.
Before discussing the merits of the dispute, a number of objections by the
Organization must be considered. One objection of the Organization was that the
manner in which the investigation was conducted and transcribed was unfair and
inaccurate. This objection seems to be based on the ground that the investigation
was recorded in shorthand and later transcribed. We do not see that this
violated the Agreement or rendered the investigation inaccurate. No inaccuracies
of any significance has been brought to our attention. It is the Carrier's
Form 1 Award No.
88+1
Page 2 Docket No. 8792
2-ShSF-MA-'81
responsibility to make a transcript of the investigation and furnish a copy to
the Organization. The manner in which the investigation is transcribed is for
the Carrier to determine.
Exception was also taken to the claimant being required to testify first in
the investigation. We have been referred to no rule prohibiting such procedure.
It is well established that disciplinary proceedings are not criminal proceedings
and that strict rules of evidence do not apply.
There was also objection to claimant's personal record being reviewed. Again
we have been cited to no rule prohibiting such procedure, which has been upheld
in numerous awards of the Board.
Before the Board there was also complaint made because the same officer
preferred the charge, conducted the investigation, and assessed the discipline.
We have been referred to no rule stating who will prefer charges, conduct
investigations, or assess discipline. At any rate, this procedure has been upheld
by so many awards as to require no citation.
The original letter of charge of May
3, 1979
was addressed to the claimant,
with copy to the Local Chairman. Subsequent postponements were by Agreement between
the Carrier and the Organization. It was the responsibility of the Organization
to keep the claimant properly advised of the postponements, as well as his right
to have witnesses present.
The charge of
may 3, 1979
against the claimant read:
"Please arrange to report to the office of Trainmaster, Armory,
Mississippi, at
2:00
P.M.,
may 14,
1979, for formal investigation to develop the facts, and determine your responsibility,
if any, in connection with your failure to add engine lobe oil
cu units
826, 827
and
441,
and your failure to add cooling
water to unit 720 during your assigned hours, April 28,
1979.
You are being charged with alleged violation of Rule "B" of
the Rules, Regulations, Safety Rules and instructions
Governing Mechanical Department Employees, Form MP-1 Standard,
effective March 1,
1957,
reading in part as follows:
'Employees, who-are negligent or indifferent to
duty ... will not be retained in the service.'
Your personal record will be reviewed in this investigation.
The duly authorized representative of your graft is being
given a copy of this letter. You may have representative
as provided by agreement rules."
In the investigation, the claimant testified that he left them (the locomotives involved) "Okayed for service".
corm 1 Award No.
88+1
page
3
Docket No. 8792
2-SISF-MA-181
Engineer Hitt, in charge of train
No.
821 an April 29, 1979, stated that he
checked the oil on engine
826
and found it to be in proper operating condition.
He did have trouble with engine 827 leaving Amory Yard, but after he got it running
he checked the oil and found it one-half between the low and full mark.
Based upon the entire record, one would assume that claimant did not properly
service the locomotives during his tour of duty. However, discipline, regardless
of the amount must be supported by substantial evidence. In this case the Board
finds that the Carrier did not present substantial evidence to support the
discipline against the claimant.
A W A R
D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
i_
~--_
By
emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
bated ~t Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of December, 1981.