l~





































Form 1 Award No. 9381
 Page 2 Docket No. 9338
 2-I&N-CM-'83
 " responsibility of failing to administer your duties
 as Lead Carman, January 19, 1980, at Sibert Yard at the
 Car Shop, Mobile, Alabama in that you were found inside
 the Cayman's write-up building while on duty between
 1:45 A.M. and 2:00 A.M., by Assistant Departmental Foreman
 T. S. Holland with the lights turned out and Cayman A. R.
 Gregg working under your jurisdiction being found asleep
 by Mr. Holland prior to finding you inside the write-up
 building."

 On March 5, 1980 Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty as charged and that he was being assessed an actual suspension from service of twenty (20) working days.

 An analysis of the transcript of the investigation indicates that sufficient: substantial evidence is present to warrant that Claimant is guilty as charged. After working the job of head Cayman for a short period of time after which Claimant bid on it according to the testimony presented at the hearing, Claimant assured Mr. J. Little, Assistant Departmental Foreman, that he thought that he could handle the job. The duties of this position, which were laid out in bulletin No. 207, dated December 19, 1979 when Claimant bid on it, clearly

 stipulate supervisor responsibilities over other Carmen. Further, it taxes the credulity of this Board to suppose that Carrier employes can productively and efficiently perform the jobs for which they are paid when they are sitting in s room in the `dark which is the situation in which Car Foreman Holland found Claimant on the night of January 19, 1980.

 The contention of the Organization in the present case, however, is not only that the Claimant is not culpable, which this Board respectfully disagrees with as noted above, but that the hearing was not fair and that the sanction ultimately levied against the Claimant by the Carrier was in contravention of Rule 34 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 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 on anything else, they may always do so in succeeding rounds of collective bargaining negotiations. With all due respect to the prior Award 1195 (I947) which did not take a position on the meaning of the general language quoted above of Rule 34, this Board now rules that until and unless the Organization negotiates a specific meaning to this part of Rule 34 there is no contractual burden on 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 grounds any discipline received as a result of an investigative hearing.
 F orm 1 Page 3

 A W A R D
Claim denied.

 Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 Award No. 9381
 Docket No. 9338
 2-z&N-CM-'83

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division


By

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