Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9868
SECOND DIVISION Locket NO. 9720
2-C&NW-FO-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Thomas F. Carey when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
( System Council No. 15, AFL-CIO
Parties to Dispute:
( Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company

Dispute: Claim of Employes:





FINDINGS:

The Second Division of the ,'Idjustment 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 employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21 , 1934.

This Division of the Ad justrzent Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



The Claimant was a Laborer working as a helper on a fuel truck for the Carrier at its Proviso Diesel Shop. He had been so employed for slightly more than one year at the time of the incident.

On May 27, 1981 the Claimant- and a driver were assigned to work on a fuel truck. The Carrier maintains tj~at the Trainmaster observed the truck standing idle between 1:30 a. m. -1:45 a. m. When the Trainmaster and the Diesel Foreman went to investigate, the Carrier charges that they observed both the Driver and the Claimant in a slouched posit=ion with their eyes closed, and they only woke up after the two supervisors started banging on the windows.

As a result of this incident, following an investigation held on June 29, 1981, both employees were charged as follows:
Form 1 Award No. 9868
Page 2 Docket No. 9720
2-C&NW-FO-'84
"Your responsibility for sleeping while on duty as fuel trucker
and truck driver helper respectively at the East Five (5) Yard
at approximately 1:50 a.m. May 27, 1981."

The Organization challenges the testimony of the Carrier's witnesses and maintains they could not determine if the Claimant's eyes were shut since the area was not well lit. Yet both supervisors testified they stood on the running boards on each side of the truck for 2-3 minutes and observed both men "with no motion of any kind from the driver or the helper." The Claimant himself, when asked at the hearing i f he was sleeping in the fuel truck, testified, "Yes, I believe 1 was!" Given such an admission against interest, the claim of a violation of the Agreement can not be sustained.

Further the Claimant in his slightly more than one (1) year of service, had apparently been previously disciplined on three (3) separate occasions.

Based upon the entire record', the discipline is not deemed excessive and the Board has no basis to substitute its judgment for that of the Carrier.






                            By Order of Second Division


ATTEST: /2~4e
        Nancy ' ever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of April, 1984