Form 1
NATIONAL
RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT
BOARD Award No. 9019
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8987
2-B&O-CM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute:
( and Canada
(
( Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
No. 1. That the Carrier violated the controlling Agreement on the date of
March 29, 1979, with regard to an investigation held on the above date
in General Car Foreman's office at East St.
Louis,
Illinois, such
investigation alleging charges against Carman, $. R. Pulse, East St.
Louis, Illinois, charges allegedly involving Carmen Pulae's
responsibility in connection with being absent from his position on
the date of Thursday, March 1, 1979, without permission and allegedly
failing to protect his
assignment.
No. 2. That this hearing was arbitrarily scheduled and conducted, partial and
unfair from the outset, and definitely not held in accordance with the
rules of the Agreement, specifically, Rule 32. That Carrier is in
direct violation of Rule
5
of the controlling Agreement, thus placing
Carrier in flagrant violation of Claimant, Carman, E. R. Pulse's
contractual rights.
No. 3. That Carrier be ordered to remove such alleged charges and discipline
assessed account of this investigation, (10 days' overhead suspension)
from Carman Pulse's service record and that he be compensated for all
time lost on the date of March 29,
1979,
account of becoming emotionally
overwrought as a direct result of the herein mentioned investigation,
thus rendering him incapable and unable to complete his regular tour
of duty on the date of March 29, 1979, plus one (1) hours' pay at
the time and one-half rate account of attending this arbitrary
investigation one hour prior to his regular starting time ,on the
date of March 29, 1979, of 2:00 P.M.
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.
Form 1 Award No. 9019
Page 2 . Docket No. 8987
2-B&O-CM-'82
This matter involves an absence on March 1,
1979,
for which the Claimant was
found at fault by reason of not securing permission, thereby failing to protect
his assignment. A ten (10) day overhead suspension was issued and was withheld
unless there should be cause for further discipline by suspension during the
ensuing six months.
The organization contends the Carrier violated the Controlling Agreement. It
asserts Claimant was in violation of no specific rule, that the investigation wars
not scheduled promptly, and, in fact, nor conducted in a fair and impartial
manner.
Claimant is a Car Inspector and was scheduled to work from 2:00 P. M. to
10:00 P. M. on March 1,
1979.
He was in the locker room shortly before starting
time. Claimant asked his Supervisor if anyone had been held over.to assist with
extra work. Everyone on the day shift had refused. Claimant told Supervisor
to mark him off as personal. He had personal business to which he had to attend.
To fill Claimant's assignment, another employee was called from the overtime
board.
Analysis of the record fails to support the Organization's contentions. By
letter of March I2,
1979,
Claimant was informed of the investigation in connection
with "being absent from your position on Thursday, March 1,
1979,
without
permission and failing to protect your assignment". The investigation was postponed at the request of the Claimant in order to secure witnesses. Carrier's
notice of investigation was both proper and timely. Claimant is held to understand that permission must be given before leaving a job assignment despite his
statement he
was "not a little child and I do not need (your) permission to be
off from work". The notice was clear, and Claimant may not determine when and
under what conditions he will leave work. He is advised that his singular
viewpoint is unacceptable and totally without basis. He must secure authorization prior to leaving a job assignment.
With respect to the Organization's claim the hearing was not conducted in a
fair and impartial manner, it is noted that Claimant obtained a postponement, was
represented, availed himself of witnesses and testified on his own behalf. There
is no foundation in the record for such charges.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAIhROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
B , ~, .,
Y
s rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of April, 1982.