Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8910
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9027
?_-WT-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Clarence H. Herrington when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Ca,- in of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
~ Washington Terminal Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Washington Terminal Company improperly suspended car Cleaner
Dennis Biggs for three
(3)
days in violation of rule 29 after investiga
tive hearing held on January
30, 1980.
2. #net
accordingly Mr. Gibbs should be made whole in line with rule
29.
The charge should be expunged from his record, and he should be
compensated for his net wage loss as well as any other loss he may have
been caused to suffer due to Carrier's miscarriage of justice.
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 Acct
as approved June
21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction aver the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Claimant, a Car Cleaner, was employed in October,
1974.
On January
8,
1980,
Claimant received an emergency telephone call at approximately 10:30 A.M.
His immediate supervisor attempted to locate the Claimant at his assigned work
location, but was unable to do so. At approximately 11:00 A.M., Claimant
received another emergency telephone gill and once again his supervisor was
unable to locate the Claimant at his assigned work location. At approximately
12:00 Noon, the supervisor and Claimant met and the Claimant notified his supervisor
that he had an emergency telephone call. The supervisor asked Claimant where he
had been all morning and the Claimant replied that he was upstairs going to the
bathroom. The supervisor, at that time, told the Claimant he would have to see
Foreman Naughton to get permission to be off. The Claimant, after advising one
supervisor that he had permission from another to be off, marked his time card out
at
12:15
P.M. and left.
In a letter dated January 11,
1980,
Claimant was notified to report for a
Hearing on the following charge:
F orm I
Page 2
Award No. 8910
Docket No.
9027
2-WT-CM-'82
"Violation of Washington Terminal General Rule '0' which
reads in pertinent part, 'No employe will be absent from
duty .., without permission.', when an January 8, 1980,
about I0:40 a.m., you absented yourself from your
assignment on Trains #142 and #176, located on Tracks
4
and 5 without permission. And on this same date about
12:15 pm., you turned in your time card and left the
property without permission."
The Claimant contended at the hearing that he had permission from one of
the supervisors to be off. However, all three supervisors testified that the
Claimant did not receive permission from them to be off.
This Board, once again, is confronted with a sharp credibility conflict in
testimony. The principle that the Board may not substitute its judgement for
that of the Carrier when there is conflicting testimony is conflicting testimony
is well established.
There is nothing contained in the record to suggest that the Carrier was
arbitrary or capricious in assessing a three
(3)
day suspension in a case such
as this and, accordingly,the Board will deny the claim.
A W
A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RATIROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
~semarie Brasch - AdministraFive Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of February,
1982.
low