Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9030
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8040
2-S PT-EW-' 82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:









That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to:

(a) Rescind the thirty (30) demerits assessed Electrician Apprentice: Losorelli's personal record.

(b) Compensate him for three (3) hours for August 22, 1978, and two (2) hours and forty (40) minutes additional time for August 28, 1978, at the straight time pro rata rate.

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.



By letter dated September 8, 1978, the Claimant, Electrician Apprentice F. A. Losorelli, was notified to attend a formal hearing in connection with his allegedly being away from his assigned post of duty without proper authority on August 22, 1978 between approximately 9:00 A.M. and the close of shift and also on August 28, 1978 between approximately 12 noon and 2:40 P.M. The notice identified that such allegations may involve violation of the below quoted position of Rule 810 of the Carrier's General Rules and Regulations:


Form 1 Award No. 903'0
Page 2 Docket No. 8640
2-sPr-Era-'82

A formal hearing was held on September 14, 1978. By letter dated October 13, 1978, the Carrier notified the Claimant that the evidence adduced at the formal hearing in its judgment established his responsibility for being away from his assigned post of duty without proper authority at approximately 9:00 A.M. to the close of shift on August 22, 1978, and again on August 28, 1978 between approximately 12 noon and 2:x+0 P.M. The Carrier, based on the above determinations, assessed the Claimant thirty demerits and such was entered on his discipline record. The Organization appealed the discipline, and the dispute is now properly before the Board.

We find that substantial evidence of record supports the Carrier's finding; of responsibility for the violation of Rule 810 in the instant case concerning the dates of August 22, 1978 and August 28, 1978.





Concerning August 22, 1978, the Claimant, Mr. Lo3orelli, testified in part, in response to questions from Interrogating Officer, Mr. Hines:









Foreman Hutchinson testified that he confronted the Claimant at 7:00 A.M. on August 23, 1978 and presented him with the problem of the preceeding day and at no time did the Claimant give a valid reason or mention visiting a doctor. We find that substantial evidence of record supports the Carrier's finding that the Claimant was responsible for violating Rule 810 on August 22, 1978.
Form 1 Award No. 9030
Page 3 Docket'No. 8640
2-SPT-EW-'82

Concerning August 28, 1978, Foreman Hutchinson testified that after 12 noon he did not see the Claimant until 2:40 P.m. Mr. Hutchinson testified that he made inquiries about the whereabouts of Mr. Losorelli on August 28. He testified that he asked Electrician Powers about Mr. Losorelli. He also testified that he was unable to assign him to any other journeyman after Mr. Snyder had gone home, because he could not find him -- because he could not, locate him. The Claimant called a number of witnesses on his behalf. One of the witnesses, Electrician Apprentice Don Munoz, testified that on August 28 Mr. Hutchinson approached him between 12 noon and 2:x+0 P.M. and asked if he knew where Mr. Losorelli was. Mr. Munoz testified that he did not recall what his answer to Mr. Hutchinson was on August 28, 1978. The Claimant called four witnesses to support his position that he was at his work station on August 28, 1978 between noon and 2:x+0 P.M. We have reviewed the testimony of Mr. M. M. Ramierez, Mr. Munoz, Mr. Carrillo and Mr. Consiglio. Sheet metal. Worker Ramierez recalled seeing the Claimant around Mr. Ramierez's work area at "2:00 or 2:10, something like that." Such testimony alone does not prove that the Claimant had remained at his post of duty and had devoted himself exclusively to his duties during his tour of duty as required by Rule 810. Mr. Munoz testified that he was asked by Mr. Hutchinson on August 28 if he knew where Mr. Losorelli was, and he testified that he had been asked but that he did not remember what his answer was. He testified in the affirmative to the question, "Did you observe Mr. Losorelli between the hours of approximately 12 noon to approximately 2:x+5?" No additional testimony as to time and place was developed from the witnesses. Mr. Carrillo testified as follows concerning August 28, 19'78












Mr. P. Consiglio testified that he did not see or talk to the Claimant between the hours of 12 noon and-2:40. Mr. Kill and Mr. Snyder were called for other purposes by the Claimant and did not testify that they observed Mr. Losorelli at his work place on August 28, 1978.

Based on the entire record concerning August 28, 1978, including the testimony of Foreman Hutchinson and the corroboration by Mr. Munoz that Foreman. Hutchinson had gone through the work area looking for and asking employees concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Losorelli, we find that substantial evidence of record exists to support the Carrier's finding that the Claimant was responsible for violating Rule 810 on August 28, 1978.
Form 1
Page 4

We shall deny this claim.

Claim denied.

A W A R D

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By

Award No. 9030

Docket No. 8640

2-SPT-EW-'82

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


,fix semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of April, 1982.