Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11236
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11279
2-CRC-EW-187
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Paul C. Carter when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. In accordance with Rule 7-A-1,~I hereby appeal the decision of
Mr. V. G. Lord, Manager Selkirk Diesel, to access discipline of 30 day's
suspension as result of a trial held on March 8, 1985. Letter of discipline
dated March 29, 1985. Discipline imposed on Mr. Alex Catello.
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.
Prior to the occurrence giving rise to the dispute herein, Claimant
was employed by the Carrier as an Electrician at Carrier's Selkirk Diesel
Terminal, Selkirk, New York. On February 4, 1985, he was notified to attend a
Trial scheduled to begin at 9:00 A.M., February 15, 1985, on the following:
"To develop the facts and determine your responsibility, if any, in connection with your alleged
improper workmanship on Conrail Unit 3345, which
was shopped at the Selkirk Diesel Terminal for the
period of December 24, 1984 thru December 29, 1984,
at which time it received a semi-annual inspection
and a PM 7. In checking with the PM work sheets,
it was revealed that you signed for item 4162,
Check traction motor and rebrush as required and
repair all noted defects and properly clean. This
unit subsequently failed on January 26, 1985 where
it was shopped at Oak Island for inspection and
repair. The unit subsequently went from Oak Island
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 11236
Docket No. 11279
2-CRC-EW-187
to Enola, where it was determined that the #1
traction motor failed due to short brushes, making
it necessary to renew the #1 traction motor. This
incident caused Conrail a large amount of unnecessary expense as a result of repairs made to this
unit.'
The notice of February 4, 1985, was sent Certified mail to Claimant's
address of record.
At the request of Organization Representatives, the Trial scheduled
for February 15, 1985, was rescheduled to March 8, 1985, and Claimant was so
notified by Certified mail sent to his address of record. The record shows
that the Postal Service attempted on three dates, February 16,-February 21 and
March 3, 1985, to deliver the letter of February 15, 1985, to Claimant, but
without success. The letter was subsequently returned to the Carrier as
unclaimed.
The Claimant did not appear at the rescheduled Hearing on March 8,
1985. Two Representatives of the Organization did appear. They objected to
the Hearing being held in Claimant's absence, and requested a further postponement. The Conducting Officer pointed out the prior postponement from
February 15, 1985, to March 8, 1985, the three attempts made by the Postal
Service to notify the Claimant of the rescheduled Hearing, and proceeded with
the Trial.
We find that the Carrier made every reasonable effort to notify
Claimant of the rescheduling of the Trial to March 8, 1985. In recent Award
11127 we cited Second Division Award No. 8694, in which it was held:
"...the carrier is not the guarantor that the
Claimant will receive actual notice. Sending a
notice by certified mail to claimant's residence
is reasonable. Furthermore, if the claimant had
been more diligent in retrieving his mail from
the post office, he would have known about the
investigation. He is estopped from blaming the
carrier for his own dilatory conduct."
Claimant's failure to appear at the rescheduled Hearing on March 8,
1985, or to request postponement in advance of the rescheduled Hearing date,
was at his peril (Second Division Award 8225). Many Awards of the National
Railroad Adjustment Board have upheld the conducting of disciplinary hearings
or investigations "in absentia." (Second Division Award 11127 and others
cited therein.) Railroad disciplinary proceedings are not court proceedings.
Strict rules of evidence do not apply, nor is the burden of proof the same as
in court cases (Third Division Award No. 25907).
The Board has carefully reviewed the Transcript of the Trial conducted on March 8, 1985, and the correspondence covering the appeal of the
dispute on the property. We find no proper basis for the Board to interfere
with the discipline imposed.
Form 1 Award No. 11236
Page 3 Docket No. 11279
2-CRC-EW-'87
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy .ever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of April 1987.