Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9376


        The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Edward Z. Suntrup when award was rendered.


( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada

                (

                ( Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company


Dispute: Claim of Employes:
            I. (a) That Cayman A. R. Gregg was improperly given a twenty (20) day actual suspension from service of Carrier from March 10, 1980, through April 4, 1980, inclusive in violation of Rule 34 of the Current Agreement by way of letter dated March 5, 1980, and


            (b) Accordingly, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company should be ordered to compensate Cayman Reed for all time lost as a result of said improper suspension, or one hundred and sixty (160) hours at the straight time rate of pay.


            (c) Carrier should also be instructed to clear Cayman Gregg personal file of all implicat3o ns and allegations as charged.


            2. (a) That the Carrier is improperly giving actual days suspension as discipline which is not in line with the provisions of Rule 34 Discipline, of the Current Agreement, and


            (b) Accordingly, Carrier should be instructed to suspend such actions until such time as the matter of giving actual days off has been contractually agreed to.


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 employer involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act; as approved June 21, 193+.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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


Claimant, Mr. A. R. Gregg, worked for the Carrier since February 2, 1970 and at the time of the incident in question held the position of Cayman at Carrier's Sibert Shop, Mobile, Alabama. On January 29, 1980 Claimant was notified to attend an investigation on February 12, 1980. He was charged as follows:
 Fur m 1 Award No. 9376
 Page 2 Docket No. 9331
 2-L&N-CM-' 83
 " with the responsibility of being found asleep while on
 duty by Assistant Departmental Foreman T. S. Holland on
 January 19, 1980, between 1:x+5 A.M. and 2:00 A.M."

 After the investigation was held as scheduled the Claimant was notified on March
 5, 1980 teat he had been found guilty as charged and that he was assessed thirty
 (30) actual days off without pay. __

 A review of the transcript of the investigation held on February 12, 1980 shows a sufficient quantum of substantial evidence to substantiate Claimant's guilt as charged. By Claimant's own admission he was guilty "of abusing the length of the coffee break ...", and according to Assistant Departmental Foreman T. S. Holland, Claimant was, during this time while he was abusing the length of the coffee break in the Eating Car, observed for 4 or 5 minutes to be sleeping and it was necessary to call his name 3 times before he responded.

 The contention of the Organization in the present case, however, is not only that the Claimant is not guilty, which this Board respectfully disagrees with as noted above, but that the hearing was not fair and that the sanction levied against the Claimant by the Carrier was in contravention of Rule 3x+ of the controlling Agreement. That part of this Rule in dispute is the following:

        "No employee shall be disciplined without a fair hearing by designated officers of the Carrier."


It is the claim of the Organization that this Rule, as written, does not permit Carrier to assess actual suspension days as a sanction against Carrier employes.

 This Board finds no grounds on which to determine that the hearing was unfair. With respect to that part of Rule 34 which is in dispute this Board underlines that it finds it to be no more than the result of general language negotiated by the parties to the Agreement. By definition, general language, which is common in union contracts in all industries in the U.S., gives itself to variable interpretations: if the parties wish to specify further their set of understandings on discipline, or an anything else, they may always do so in succeeding rounds of collective bargaining negotiations. With all due respect to the prior Award 1195 (19x+7) which did not take a position on the meaning of the general language quoted above of Rule 3x+, this Board now rules that until and unless the Organization negotiates a specific meaning to this part of the Rule that there is no contractual burden an the Carrier to do other than to use common sense and fair management practices in issuing sanctions when it determines that an employe is guilty as charged. It is, of course, the contractual right of an employe, under Rules 32 and 33 of the same controlling Agreement, to appeal on merits or on procedural grotmds any discipline received as a result of an investigative hearing.

                          A W A R D


    Claim denied.

Form 1
 Page 3

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Award No. 9376
 Docket No. 9331
 2--cm-' 83

NATIOVAL RAILROAD ADETUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By
            Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated(at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February, 1983.