f
Form I
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award No.
9383
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
937
2-SCL-CM-183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Cayman of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
~ Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company was in violation when
Cayman H. M. Joyner 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 Joyner'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 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.
Claimant, Mr. H. M. Joyner, was summoned to appear for a hearing on August 20,
1979
to investigate an alleged altercation which he was involved in with another
carman. After postponement requested by the Organization, the investigation was;
held on September
27, 1979.
As a result of this hearing Claimant was notified on
October
17, 1979
by the Carrier that he had been found in contravention of
Rule
14
of the Rules and Regulations of the Mechanical Department, Form MD-500
and that a letter of reprimand was being placed in his personnel file.
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."
~Employe submission to this case mistakenly states that Claimant was disciplined
by the Carrier for violation of Mechanical Department Rules 14 and 29. Claimant
was, however disciplined only for alleged violation of Rule 14 (See Carrier Exh:Lbit
B-1, Letter stating infraction and discipline to H. M. oyner, Cayman, by W. L.
fnT0stead, Master Mechanic, October
17, 1979.)
F orm 1
Page
2
Award No.
93$3
Docket No.
93+7
2-SCL-CM-183
An analysis of the transcript of the hearing leads the Board to the
conclusion that sufficient substantial evidence of probative value is present to
substantiate that Claimant did violate Rule
14
. Claimant engaged in an
altercation with the fellow carman in question as witnessed variously by his own
and that carman's testimony during the hearing; in addition, three fellow workers
and the general foreman were aware, as stated in hearing, that a heated argument
was taking place. In view of this the Board finds no basis for disturbing the
position of the Carrier in the instant case.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad
Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
s
By
..a
::~
osemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant.
Date. at Chicago, Ilinois, this
2nd
day of February,
1983.