Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9552
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9180
2-S00-CM-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Josef P. Sirefman when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( Soo Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current agreement, Carman Michael Rathsack, Shoreham
Shops, Minneapolis, Minnesota was improperly suspended from service,
November 29, 1979 to December 21, 1979.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate the aforenamed
employee for loss of (15) fifteen days, for being unjustly removed
from service and that investigation to be removed from his personal
file, for Soo Line R.R. violation of Rules 31,32, 34, and 41, Par.l.
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 Freight Carman'Michael Rathsack was charged with leaving his
assigned work area without proper authority, conducting union business on company
time, and posting advertisements on company bulletin boards in violation of Rule 41,
on November 13, 1979 in the Carmen's locker room. An investigation was held on
November 20, 1979, and Claimant was subsequently assessed a fifteen (15) day suspension.
A review of the record before this Board establishes that Claimant did
leave his work assignment without permission, conducted union business while on the
clock, and posted an informational notice to the Carmen concerning insurance which
contained an advertisement, namely, "If further assistance if needed in settling
of your claims we recommend you contact... , Here the Claimant wrote in the name,
address and phone number of a particular law firm. Thus there was substantial
evidence in the record to sustain the Carrier's determination to discipline
Claimant.
Claimant contends that because he is a union official, he was not given a.
fair and impartial hearing. In view of Claimant's admissions contained in the
record concerning the violations he was charged with, this Board sees no merit
in this contention. Moreover, that the entire occurrence may have only taken some
five minutes away from his work assignment, and that Claimant deducted thirty
minutes from his time card to cover his involvement
in
union business that day
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9552
Docket No. 9180
2-S00-CM-'83
cannot offset his disregard of recognized rules and procedures. The multiple
violations flowing from what appears to have been one incident underscores the
seriousness of the infraction, and this Board finds that the discipline assessed
was reasonable under the circumstances.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
arie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of July, 1983.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division