Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10610
SECOND DIVISION Locket No. 10512
2-SOU-CM-185
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James R. Cox when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the U. S. and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(Southern Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement, Carman W. R. Crawford, Atlanta,
Georgia, was unjustly suspended from service from June 30, 1982 through
July 14, 1982.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to pay Carman W. R. Crawford
for all time lost while suspended from service.
FINDING:
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.
Claimant was suspended from June 30, 1982 through July 14, 1982 for
being away from his assigned work area on June 8, 1982 without permission.
The employees argue that the Carrier violated Rule 34 in that Claimant
was not proven to be at fault.
Car Foreman Lassiter tried to call Crawford eight or ten times June
8th by radio in order to direct him to watch a particular train out of the
Yard. When the General Foreman went to the North end of the Yard to see why
Claimant was not
answering his
radio, he saw Claimant driving in his personal
vehicle, driving up toward the Car Inspector Shack at the North end of the
Forwarding Yard, along a road on railroad property which leads from a public
highway. When asked where he had been, Claimant responded that he had been
to get something to eat. According to the evidence, employees are not to
leave the property except with the Supervisor's permission and then should be
off the clock. The General Foreman, using Claimant's radio, called for the
Car Foreman. The radio functioned properly at that time.
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 10610
Docket No. 10512
2-SOU-CM-185
When asked whether he knew that getting something to eat was improper,
the Foreman stated that Claimant responded he had not been off the property.
Carman Smith was present at the preliminary investigation. He noted
that the General Foreman had then tried to call the Car Foreman on Claimant's
radio. The first time there was no answer, but the Foreman did answer the
second call.
The Carman stated at the formal investigation that he had called Claimant
Crawford's attention to a missing hubcap on his car sometime earlier in the
evening and that Claimant told him that he might have lost it coming down the
hill when he hit a hole.
Claimant testified that he hit a pothole coming to work and, when he was
told that a hubcap was missing, decided to go up and look for it about 2:30
A.M. before he ate lunch. He said he did hear the Car Foreman calling him on
the radio but that his radio would not work. He found the hubcap, got back
into the car and went down the hill where he was confronted by the General
Foreman. Claimant denies that the General Foreman ever asked him where he
had been. Significantly, Crawford had made no mention of a hubcap search at
the preliminary investigation.
Crawford claimed that his radio was bad and was not used at the North
end after that night. However, the radio book indicates that Crawford
himself used the same radio the next day. It was sent to the shop June 10th,
or shortly thereafter.
In March, 1978 Crawford had been reprimanded for being out of his assigned
work area in his own vehicle without the Foreman's authorization.
The evidence does establish that Claimant Crawford was seen June 8th _in
a non-work area away from work areas driving his personal car toward the
Inspector Shack. He makes no Claim that he had or attempted to get permission
to leave his work area. He also did not contend that he had duties in the
area where he had driven his car.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Nancy
-7
AA -
=vez - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of October, 1985