Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10722
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10484
2-SSR-MA-'86
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James R. Cox when award was rendered.
(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
(Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(Seaboard System Railroad
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current Agreement, Machinist B. L. Simmons was
unjustly treated when he was adjudged guilty and assesed (sic) thirty demerits
on September 16, 1981 for alleged violation of Rules 7 and 12 of the Rules and
Regulations of the Mechanical Department. Said alleged violation occurring on
August 6, 1981.
2. That accordingly, the Seaboard System Railroad Company be ordered
to remove the guilty verdict along with the thirty (30) demerits from Mr.
Simon's record.
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.
The Organization contends that Machinist B. L. Simmons was improperly
assessed thirty demerits for violations of Rules 7 and 12 of the Mechanical
Department when he replaced an iron brake shoe with a composition-type shoe he
found in the back of his truck. The evidence established that Machinists had
been verbally instructed to use Cast Iron Shoes on engines of the type
involved in this case. Cast Iron Shoes had been put on the Units for at least
a month preceding the incident. As engines came through the shop all Composition Shoes were to be replaced. One Machinist testified that he never
knew of any time that the Company had permitted mixing shoes except in
emergency situations.
Form 1 Award No. 10722
Page 2 Docket No. 10484
2-SSR-MA-186
About one hour after he had put the Composition Shoe on a wheel, a
wheel was reported running hot and Claimant was dispatched to make necessary
repairs. He did not bring an Iron Shoe with him in an effort to change the
Composition Shoe. Subsequently, the Master Mechanic found the hot wheel and
Claimant Simmons was instructed to change the composition shoe. Significantly, the evidence indicated that the area where the repair was being made
was not far from the shop where the Iron Shoes were available. A Machinist
who went out with Claimant during his second trip to the engine acknowledged
that if he had had a Iron Shoe with him he would have replaced the Composition
Shoe at the time.
Claimant's conduct justified the discipline imposed.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest
/~2 ,
N ncy J. De v ~xecutive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of January 1986.