f`
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9382
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9346
2-SCL-CM-183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward L. Stmtrup when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employer:
I. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company was in violation when
Carman W. A. McGlenn was summoned to appear for investigation on
September 27, 1979, charged with violations of the rules and regulations
of the mechanical department.
2. That accordingly, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be ordered to
remove from Cayman McGlenn's record the violative reprimand placed
there on October 17, 1979 after the beforementioned investigation.
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 Dime 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. W. A. McGlenn, received notice by letter dated August 16,
1979 to appear for an investigative hearing on August 20, 1979. Claimant was
charged with allegedly engaging in an altercation with another carman on August
1979 which resulted in alleged personal injury to Claimant when he fell from,
the shop crane an which he was sitting. As a result of the investigation which
ultimately took place on September 27, 1979, because of a postponement request
by the Organization, Claimant was notified on October 17, 1979 that he was found
to be in contravention of Rules 14 and 29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
Mechanical Department, Form MD-500-
Rule
14
states
"Employees must not unnecessarily interrupt, by conversation
or otherwise, other employees in the discharge of their duties.
Anything that may distract from the good order of the shops
is prohibited."
Form I Award No.
9382
Page 2 Docket No.
93-6
2-scz-CM-'83
Rule 29 states:
"Any employee receiving an injury will report same to his
foreman as soon as he is able to do so."
In effect, Carrier claim was that Claimant did engage in an altercation with his
fellow carman, in violation of Rule
14,
and that the alleged injury which resulted
from this, by Claimant's own admission, was not reported until August 10,
1979
in violation of Rule
2
. Claimant was notified that as a result of the above
Rule violations a letter of reprimand was being placed in his personnel file.
After appeals were filed in an orderly manner an property to have the letter of
reprimand removed, this case is now before the National Railroad Adjustment
Board. The contention of the Organization is that the Carrier violated Rule
32
of the controlling Agreement when it placed the letter of reprimand in Claimant's
file since Rules
14
and
29,
which Claimant allegedly violated, are not part of
that same controlling Agreement. That part of Rule
2
to which reference is
here made is the following:
"No employee shall be disciplined without a fair hearing
by a designated officer of the company."
An analysis of the record before the Board leads it to conclude that
sufficient substantial evidence is present to substantiate the Carrier position
that Claimant was in contravention of Rule
14
of the Rules and Regulations
of the Mechanical Department. Without in any way denying that the Carrier is
within its rights when applying contractual Rule
32
when employes are found in
contravention of Carrier's own unilaterally generated rules (as long as these are
not in contradiction to those rules contractually established), the Board also
holds that Carrier erred in its contention that Claimant violated Rule
2
. If
Carrier wished to pursue the issue of personal illness reporting in this instance
it would have been better advised to do so, in the mind of the Board, by making
reference to Rule
40
of the controlling Agreement rather than Rule
2
of the
Mechanical Department. Since it did not do so the Board views the issue of
personal illness reporting in the instant case as moot. Rule 40 of the controlling
Agreement reads, in pertinent part:
"Employees injured while at work are required to make a
detailed report of the circumstances of the accident just
as soon as they are able to do so after receiving medical
attention."
There is no question, however, that it was appropriate for the Carrier to apply
Rule
32
of the controlling Agreement when disciplining the Claimant for contravention of Mechanical Department Rule
14.
It is a well established tradition of
this Board that -- "... General Rules promulgated by a Carrier, unless they
contravene the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, are mandatory standards
with which an employee agrees to comply ... (and) ... (F)ailure to comply subjects
him to disciplinary action" (Second Division Award
5987).
In view of this, as
well as the preponderance of substantial evidence as this relates to Claimant's
violation of Rule 14, the Board will not disturb Carrier's position in this
matter.
Form 1
Page 3
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No. 9382
Docket No. 9346
2-SCL-CM-183
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
arie Brasch - Administx ive Assistant
Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February, 1983.