C:\AWARDS\OUT\2-08929.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8929
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8794
2-BN-CM-182 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Paul C. Carter when award was rendered. ( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada

(

( Burlington Northern Railroad Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. Claimant William Forbush did not receive a fair and impartial invest:i~'a-

tion as a result of the Carrier not calling a witness with material

information, Car Foreman Lyle Burr.

2. That Burlington torthern, Inc. further violated the terms of the current

Agreement when Bridal Veil Shop, Minneapolis, Minnesota, upgraded

Carman William Forbush was unjustl-~r dismissed from service on January

13, 1979,

following investigation td or, December

19, 1978.

That accordingly, Burlington Northern, Inc. be ordered to compensate

Claimant Forbush eight

(8)

hours pay at the pro rata rate for each of

the following days: January

15, 16, 17,

and

18, 1979.

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.

Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

The record shows claimant was employed as a carman apprentice at Carrier's Bridal Veil Shop, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Carrier states that apprentices are required to complete lessons provided by the Railway Educational Bureau at the rate of two per month; that, by agreement, an apprentice's progress is considered unsatisfactory if he falls more than two months, or four lessons behind, and an apprentice who maintains unsatisfactory progress in his lessons is subject to formal investigation, and possible discipline. The Carrier states that on November 3, 1978, the Carrier's records indicated that claimant's lessons were three behind, and contends that as it warning a letter was addressed to claimant ao..vising him of his status, and that three days later, on November 6.., '.9F~ tfe Ass='.stant General Foreman advised claimant that he: ~orm I Award No. 892 !"age 2 Docket No. 8794 2-BN-CM-'82 vas six lessons behind. On December 11, 1978, the Carrier's records showed taut claimant was five lessons behind, and on that date claimant was notified:

"Attend investigation in the Conference Room, Northtown Hump Tower, 4059 EastRiver Road, Minneapolis, MN at 10:30 am Tuesday, December 19, 1978 for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility in connection with your alleged failure to maintain satisfactory progress in the completion of the technical lessons of your apprenticeship program.

Arrange for representative and/or witnesses, if desired in accordance with governing provisions of prevailing schedule rules.

Please acknowledge receipt by affixing,your signature in space provided in copy of this letter.

/s/ E. Z. Phillips

Superintendent

cc: Mr. Z. W. Novitsky, Mr. W. Pidany."

The investigation was held as scheduled. There was substantial evidence adduced at the investigation that at the time of the charge claimant was five lessons behind. Rule 38(f) of the applicable agreement is quoted in the record, and reads in part

"... Progress in connection with the Railway Educational Bureau Program will not be considered satisfactory if the apprentice becomes more than two months behind in completing his lessons, or if the apprentice becomes more than three months behind in reworking lessons graded at less than

75°0;

but illness or other causes beyond the control of the apprentice will be taken into consideration. An apprentice dismissed from service solely because of unsatisfactory progress in technical training will be reinstated if he submits all lessons in arrears in satisfactory condition to the apprentice supervisor within 10 calendar days after his dismissal."

The Board finds that claimant's dismissal was warranted. He was reinstated. when he submitted all lessons in satisfactory condition after being graded by -he Railway Educational Bureau.

The matter was handled in accordance with Rule 38(f).

A W A R D

Claim denied. Form 1 Award No. 8929 Page 3 Docket No. 8794 2-BN-CM-182 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division Attest: Executive Secretary National Railroad Adjustment Board By -1~semarie Brasch - Admin strative kA-ssia-it-jant Dated fat Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of February, 1982.