Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9194
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8860
2-SLSF-CM-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Steven Briggs when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada

(

( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:

1. That the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company unjustly sad arbitrarily

dismissed Carman Charles A. Poe, Kansas City, Kansas, from service on

May 17, 1979, following an investigation conducted on May 15, 1979, in

violation and derrogation of the controlling Agreement and by deliberate

misapplication of the Rules, Regulations, Safety Rules and Instructions

Governing Mechanical Department Employees.

2. That the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company failed to apprise Carmen Charles A. Poe of the precise charges against him prior to the investigation, amended and expanded the charges without notice to Claimant arid failed to produce relevant evidence at the investigation demonstrating that Charles A. Poe had violated Rule B of the Carrier's Rules and Regulations at any time, thereby denying him a fair hearing in violation of the controlling Agreement.

3. That the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company discriminated against Caiman Charles A, Poe and other members of Local 502 by denying them leave of absence in the performance of Union duties in violation of Rule 37 of the controlling Agreement and that Caiman Poe was disciplined as a result of his attempt to protect the rights of his membership in the face of this discriminatory conduct.

4. That Carrier's officers have interjected matters outside the record

constituting highly irrelevant, immaterial and inflamatory information

into the appeal process of this claim and have relied upon this prejudicial

sad foreign material to uphold Claimant's discharge in violation of the:

controlling Agreement.

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 employee 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.

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

Form 1 Award No. 9194
Page 2 Docket No. 8860 mot
2-SLSF-CM-182
The Claimant was assigned to work the 8:00 a.m. to x+:00 p.m. shift on May 1,
1979. At about 8:00 a.m. he informed Foreman Robert Doleshal that as Chairman of
Local Protective Board No. 502 he was requesting leave for himself and two other
casmen to conduct Organization business. The Claimant explained that the three would
like to leave work at 2:30 P.m. to meet one of the Organization's attorneys at the
airport. Doleshal agreed, work load permitting.
At 2:30 p.m. Doleshal told the Claimant that the work load precluded his releasing
all three men, but that he would release the Claimant and one other carman. A
heated discussion then arose between the two men, with the Claimant allegedly
becoming argumentative, vicious, and threatening toward Foreman Doleshal.
The Carrier notified the Claimant via a May 5, 1979 notice that a formal
investigation would be held on May 15, 1979, "... to develop the facts and determine
your responsibility, if any, in alleged insubordination approximately 2:30 P.m. on
Mar 1, 1979, argumentative attitude, vicious, and threatening your immediate
supervisor, R. J. Doleshal."

After careful study of the record in this matter, the Board has concluded that the Carrier's MaSr 5, 1979 notice to Claimant was sufficiently precise to apprise him of the charges against him prior to the investigation. The Carrier's investigation of these charges was conducted fairly and in accordance with the controlling Agreement .

The Carrier did not discriminate against the Claimant and other members of Local 502 in violation of Rule 37 of the controlling Agreement. In fact, the totality of Foreman Doleshal's conduct on May 1, 1979 suggests that he acted in good faith to grant the Claimant's request to leave work on account of union business. When notified at 8:00 A.M. that day of the Claimant's request to leave with two other employes at 2:30 P.M., he was receptive, even though the nature of the so-called "union business" (i.e., meeting an attorney at the airport) was highly questionable. Moreover, Foreman Doleshal agreed at 2:30 P.M. to let the Claimant leave for this purpose with one employe., out not two, owing to workload demands. It therefore appears that Foreman Doleshal acted reasonably, based on his perception of the needs of the work environment.

The Carrier's assertion that the Claimant became belligerent aced insubordinate to Foreman Dolesh al is denied by the Claimant; yet in light of his overall work record it is reasonable to conclude that the Carrier's version of the events of May 1, 1979, is the more accurate.

The Carrier did not unjustly dismiss the Claimant from service on May 17,

1979.

AW AR D

Claim denied.

Form 1 Award iv'o. 9194
?age 3 Docket 1To. 8860
2-SLSF-CM-182
NATIONAL RALTUaOAL fiDJUSTI-MU BOARD
By Order of Second Division
fittest: Acting Executive Secretary

National Railroad Adjustment Board

*~

By ~'.~sL..a! ~.,. .e",~ .<.~.-a.'...~.~.»..·~

-!roseParie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of July, 1982.