F orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9410
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9349
2-NRPC-EW-183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Edward L. Suntrup when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute: ~ National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employee:
I. That the National Railroad Passenger Corporation denied Electrician
S. G. Jones the right to a fair and impartial investigation on January
18,
1980,
subsequently unfairly and unjustly assessing him 15 days
deferred suspension in Carrier's letters of January 28, 1980.
2. That, accordingly, the discipline assessed Electrician S. G. Jones be
reversed in its entirety, all matters relative to this case be removed
from Claimant's record and with no further reference ever made to this
case in the future.
F ind iag 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 employee involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act
as approved Joe 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. Samuel G. Jones, has been employed as an electrician by the
Carrier since December 10, 1976. On December 28, 1979 Claimant was notified to
appear for formal investigation on January 4, 1980. He was charged with violation
of Carrier Rules of Conduct "K" and "L" on December 26, 1980. These Rules read
as follows:
"K. Employees must report for duty at the designated time
and place, attend to their duties during the hours
prescribed and comply with instruction from their supervisor."
"L. Employees shall not sleep while an duty, be absent from
duty, exchange duties or substitute others in their place,
without proper authority.
After request for postponement by Claimant the investigation was held on January
18, 1980. On January 28, 1980 Claimant was notified that he had been found in
violation of these two Rules cited above as a consequence of his failure to
meet Train No.
4
and perform his duties as electrician on December 26,
1979
and.
that he was thereby being assessed a fifteen (15) day deferred suspension. After
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9+10
Docket No. 93+9
2-NRPC-Ew-'83
appeals on property in accordance with the controlling Agreement this case is
now before the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
Organization's arguments in its submission to this Board center on procedural
issues related to the fairness of the investigative hearing. Analysis of the
record before this Board leads it to conclude that Rule 23 of the controlling
Agreement (Discipline-Investigation-Appeal) was not contravened. While Rules
"K" and "L" were not cited verbatim during the hearing nor in the original notice
to Claimant of this hearing, Claimant did admit to having a copy of these Rules
which it is assumed he consulted relative to the instant case; further, while
Carrier did cite past record when assessing penalty, which the Board notes is
a traditional prerogative of Carriers in the railroad industry, Carrier did this
more as a exercise of form than substance since no previous detail of the prior
work record on the part of the Claimant is cited.
The focus of the instant case, therefore, must be centered on the issue
of merit. The record shows that Claimant's only responsibility on December 26,
1979,
at the hour when Train No.
4
was to arrive, was to be available to perform
repairs on this train if so instructed by the Relief Car Foreman. Instead
Claimant was an Train No.
3d+,
during the time No.
4
was in the station, and could
not be found by the Relief Car Foreman. Both the Relief Car Foremen and
Organization witness, electrician Livingston, stated in hearing that there was no
reason to be on Train No. 30+ unless there was work to be done. And the Car
Foreman had not given such instructions. It appears to this Board, given the facts
presented to it in this case that Claimant was, in fact, preoccupied with some
repairs on Train No. 30+ out of personal initiative while Train No.
4
was in
station. While this Board does not condone infractions of Rules such as "R"
and "L", which it has no other alternative but to determine to be such in the
instant case, it nevertheless wishes to underline for the record that these
rules were broken according to all appearances, as s result of personal initiative
on the part of the Claimant rather than any desire or will to flaunt the
importance of these Rules for the orderly and efficient functioning of the Carrier.
The fact of the matter is, however, that a railroad cannot function in an orderly
and efficient manner if the lines of authority do not remain established, and if
the channels of communication underpinning this line of authority do not remain
intact.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By _
s rie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of March,
1983.