Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9439
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9072
2-MP-CM-183
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. IaRocco when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute:
( and Canada
~ Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (C&EI)
Dispute: Claim of Em loges:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (former Chicago and Eastern
Illinois Railroad Company violated the terms and conditions of the
current Agreement, specifically Article V of the August 21, 1951+
Agreement and Rule 30 when Superintendent, D. C. Packard, failed to
notify the Organization, in writing, as to his reasons for declining
the appeal. He also refused to meet with the Local Committee as
requested by the Local Chairman.
2. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company further violated Rule
30
when, as a result of an investigation held on January
30,
1980, Cayman
B. Prince was dismissed from service, effective February
5,
1980. Said
dismissal of Cayman B. Prince is unfair and unjust as well as a violation
of Rule
30
of the current working Agreement.
3.
That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be ordered to reinstate
Cayman B. Prince to its service with seniority, vacation and all other
rights unimpaired and compensated for all time lost until said
reinstatement is in effect. Also, that the Railroad Company pay all
premiums for insurance coverage (Hospital, Surgical, Medical and Dental;
for all time held out of service.
In addition to the money amounts claimed herein, the Carrier shall pay
Claimant an additional amount of
6%
per annum, compounded annually on
the anniversary date of claim.
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,
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, a car inspector was charged with possessing merchandise stolen
from the Carrier at 6:30 P.m. an January
4,
1980.The Carrier determined that
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9439
Docket No. 9072
2-ri?-CM-'
83
Claimant had committed the charged offense and dismissed Claimant from service
on February 5, 1980.
The Organization urges us to summarily sustain this claim because it contends
that the Carrier failed to properly deny the Organization's initial appeal. After
reviewing the pertinent correspondence, we find that the Carrier's denial letter
dated February 25, 1980 complied with Article V of the 195+ National Agreement.
At the investigation held on January
30,
1980, the Organization raised
two significant objections. First, the Organization asserts that the notice of
charges was vague and unclear. Second, the Organization claims the scope of
the investigation went far beyond the facts underlying the alleged infraction as
specified in the notice. We must overrule both objections. The notice of charges
sufficiently described the nature of the alleged offense. Claimant and his
representatives were duly apprised with the precise time and date that Claimant
was purportedly observed with stolen goods. As to the second objection, the
Carrier could properly introduce evidence in an effort to show the goods Claimant
possessed were taken, without authority, from the Carrier's custody. Such evidence
was inextricably tied to the specific reference in the notice of charges that
Claimant possessed stolen merchandise.
At.the investigation, a Carrier Special Agent gave a detailed account of an
investigation he conducted to ascertain the cause of a series of thefts at Dalton
Yard. On January
4,
1980, the Special Agent observed two parsons load goods
(which
were in
the Carrier's custody onto a truck at Dalton Yard. He followed
the truck to Claimant's home where he observed Claimant transfer the stolen items
to another vehicle. Under the surveillance of other police officers, Claimant
later drove the second vehicle to another residence where he began unloading the
merchandise. At this point, the officers seined the stolen property. Though
Claimant denied that he had possession of the stolen goods, the record contains
substantial evidence that he committed the charged offense. Given the seriousness
of Claimant's misconduct, the Carrier could reasonably impose a severe penalty.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAIIatOAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
r
je~l
By / `'
semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of April, 1983.