Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9938
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9842
2-SPT-MA-'84
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee W. J. Peck when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute: ( Aerospace Workers
(
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier improperly dismissed Machinist G. R. Forgit
(hereinafter referred to as Claimant) on February 10, 1981.
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to restore Claimant to
service with seniority and service rights unimpaired and with
compensation for all wage and benefit loss.
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 employes 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.
This dispute involves the following facts and circumstances, the Claimant
involved in this dispute is a machinist employed by the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company at West Colton, California.
On date of January 20, 1981 Claimant was instructed by Carrier to attend a
formal hearing in the office of the Plant Manager at Bloomington, California on
date of January 28, 1981 account alleged dishonest, negligence and indifference
on the part of the Claimant to the performance of duties in servicing and taking
oil samples of certain Locomotive units on dates of January 14, and 15, 1981.
The hearing was held as scheduled, Claimant being represented by 3 (three)
members of the Organization. Facts developed at the hearing shows that oil
samples allegedly taken by the Claimant from ?0 (ten; different Locmotive units
were in fact new oil never previously used in any unit. Facts also developed at
the hearing show that one Locomotive unit alleged serviced by the Claimant was in
fact low on oil in both the crankcase and the compressor.
In defense the Employes claim that some unknown person must have switched
oil samples, substituting new oil for used oil in the sample bottles, however
they submit not an iota of proof in regard to this claim. They also claim that
the low oil in the compressor was the result of a faulty gasket which alleged
Form 1 Award No. 9938
Page 2 Docket No. 9842
2-SPT-MA-'84
allowed about 9 (nine) gallons of oil to leak out on the floor. However
apparently no one, either official or Dnploye ever saw the resulting puddle of
oil which would have had to be quite large, and if anyone was ever assigned to
clean it up it does not appear in the record.
in considering all of the facts of the case we find that the Carrier has
sustained their burden of proof and must deny claim.
A W A
R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of June, 1984