Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10878
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10899
2-CRC-MA-'86
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Leonard K. Hall when award was rendered.
(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
( Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation be ordered to remove the
five (5) day actual suspension assessed Machinist J. E. Goot, from his service
record.
2. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation be ordered to compensate
Machinist J. E. Goot for five (5) days pay at the prevailing Machinist rate of
pay in accordance with Rule 7-A-1 (e) of the prevailing Agreement effective
May 1, 1979.
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 Claimant was given notice of a trial in connection with his
failure to perform duties as a Machinist when he was assigned to apply the
exhaust stack to Unit CR 2800 at about 12:10 AM, February 6, 1983 and approximately two and one-half hours later had failed to do so.
Following the trial the Claimant was assessed a five-day suspension.
The record is replete with charges and counter charges with the
Carrier's Foreman testifying that the charges are factual and the Claimant and
his Representative strongly asserting to the contrary.
As we have held in numerous discipline cases heretofore, we do not
resolve conflicts in testimony. The credibility of testimony is, therefore,
at issue.
Form 1 Award No. 10878
Page 2 Docket No. 10899
2-CRC-MA-'86
While the conflict is sharp, the Board has uniformly held over a long _
period of time that the credibility of those testifying, their demeanor and
the weight given their testimony is for the determination of the Hearing
Officer.
In order to sustain this Claim we must find that the Organization has
proved that the action taken by the Carrier in this case is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion vested in management. The employe and/or
his Representatives have not produced substantial evidence of probative value
that the Carrier was arbitrary, capricious and abused its discretion in
assessing the Claimant with a five-day suspension. We will not, therefore,
substitute our judgment for that of the Carrier.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
ancy J. v~ Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of June 1986.
VAW