Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
9~@7
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9446
2-NRPC-MA-183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers
(
( National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK be ordered
to clear Machinist Michael White's record of a deferred 60 day
suspension.
F indim s '
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.
The Claimant, a machinist, has been employed by the Carrier for approximately
six and one-half years and is assigned to the third shift. On August
15, 1980,
Claimant is alleged to have been sleeping while on duty and charged by the Carrier
with violation Rule of Conduct "L - Sleeping on Duty" and Rule of Conduct "K -
Employees Must Attend to Their Duties During Prescribed Hours". An investigation
was held on September 12,
1980.
Claimant was notified thereafter that, as a
result, a 60 day deferred suspension would be imposed.
The Organization argues the Carrier failed to establish by probative evidence
its burden of proof that Claimant was sleeping on duty or failed to attend to
his duties. The Organization asserts Claimant was on his unpaid lunch period.
Claimant denied he was asleep and says it was customary for that shift to take
lunch at times other than scheduled with the knowledge of the foreman and "when
we are through working the train".
This Board finds the record established the Claimant was found in a darkened
crew room, which also serves as a lunch room, in a prone position at approximately
3:50 A.M. His scheduled lunch break was from
3:00
A.M. to
3:30
A.M. Testimony
of the two supervisors who discovered Claimant indicate he did not move when the
lights were turned on. Despite disavowing being asleep, the Claimant at no
point denied he was laying down.
F orm 1
Page 2
Award No. 9387
Docket No.
9W
2-NRPC-MA-'83
We agree with the cm clusion reached by the Carrier and concur that circumstances attested to by the supervisors reasonably allow s determination the
Claimant was sleeping. While it is asserted the Claimant was on his lunch hour,
the uncontested testimony of Carrier indicates lunches may be delayed only in the:
case of emergency. There is no evidence to establish that condition existed.
Determining thusly, the Board agrees with the Carrier that Claimant was not attending
to his duties during prescribed hours. We agree the evidence in the record
substantially supports Carrier's charges and its decision to discipline.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By~..~
~v
emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated ~t Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of February,
1983.