Form 1 NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. :,
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9267
2-BRCofC-CM-' 82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edwrad M. Hogan when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Belt Railway Company of Chicago
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That, as a result of an investigation held on March 26,
1980,
Carman
David Higens was suspended from service for two (2) days, April
5,
1980
and April 6,
1980,
and Carman Patrick Keating was suspended from
service for a thirty (30) day period from April 1,
1980
through April
30, 1980.
Said suspension is arbitrary, capricious, unfair, unjust,
unreasonable and an abuse of managerial discretion as well as bek~ig in
violation of Rule 20 of the current working Agreement.
2. That The Belt Railway Company of Chicago be ordered to compensate
Carman Higens and Keating the exact amount of their losses, or any and
all wage losses sustained, plus interest at the current rate on the
amount of reparations due.
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.
This is a discipline case involving the suspension of two employees for the
unauthorized taking of an extended lunch break without permission and an
additional charge against one of the employees for becoming insubordinate to his
supervisors when questioned by them as to why he had done so. Claimants admit
that they were late in returning from lunch due to poor service at a restaurant.
The facts of the case indicate the Claimants took an additional twenty-five
minutes beyond the allowable thirty minute lunch period. Rule H of the Carrier
states in its pertinent parts:
"Employees must
...
attend to their duties during the hours
prescribed
...
They must not absent themselves from duty
...
without proper authority."
Claimants contend that on previous occasions they had been allowed an
Form 1
Page
2
Award No.
Docket No.
9267
2-BRCofC-CM-'82
extended lunch period. Witnesses for the Carrier strongly indicate to the
contrary. This Board will not upset the conclusions of the hearing officer,
who is present and able to deduce from the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses,
absent a clear showing of arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable action on the
part of the hearing officer.
The organization further claims that the discipline as to the two Claimants is
excessive. Claimant Keating :ass assessed a thirty day suspersior_; lai:~rar:± Hwoen.s
was suspended for two days. The record indicates that Claimant Keating had
previously been assessed a thirty day suspension. This Board finds that the
amount of discipline assessed against the two Claimants was fully warranted and
justified. There is no justification for this Board to consider any modification
of the discipline imposed.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By .~ `,c.--.w
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
D: d at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of April,
1982.