Form 1 NATIONAL RA ILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8899
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9037
2-SCL-SM-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition. Referee Clarence H. Herrington when award was rendered.


Parties to Dispute:


Dispute: Claim of Employee:




















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 ot=aiaphyes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as app*pved June 21, 193+.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



Claimant, R. E. Laboris, a Sheet Metal Worker, was employed by the Carrier at its Hialeah, Florida facilities on April 22, 197+.

On June 13, 1979, Claimant sustained a slight injury to his finger. By letter dated June 28, 1979, the Claimant was notified to attend an investigation to be held July 5, 1979, for alleged insubordination and failure to promptly report a personal injury.
Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 8899
Docket No. 9037
2-SCL-SM-'82

The investigation was rescheduled and held on July 19, 1979. The Claimant was given a formal letter, dated October 11, 1979, removing him from service for violation of Rule 12, that portion reading "*** insubordination ***" and Rule 10, that portion reading "Employee must report promptly to supervisor any personal injury occurring on duty or -on--8ety property."

A careful review of the record shows that Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial hearing prior to his dismissal. While this Board certainly does riot condone the action of the Claimant, it is felt that a thorough study of the transcript of the formal investigation reveals that Claimant does have a language problem arid thought he had reported, the personal injury to his supervisor. His actions justified severe discipline since he did not explicitly follow the rules as required.

This Board has consistently, in prior awards, held that actions by a Claimant, such as are involved in this dispute, were grounds for dismissal. We have been reluctant to substitute our judgement for the judgement of the Carrier in such cases and have avoided reinstating discharged employee who have been found guilty of such offenses. The Board, however, on some occasions reversed a Carrier's actioxu if we thought the discipline imposed was arbitrary or capricious, or the discipline had by the time of our deliberations served its purpose.

In the instant case, the Board holds that the discipline imposed to date hasp served its purpose. Claimant must be made aware that if he is involved in any further major infraction this Board would, without doubt, deny a further chance to return to work.

A WAR D

Claimant is returned to service without any back wages or payment for lost benefits.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By /

emarie Branch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of February, 19~)2.