Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11532
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11502
88-2-87-2-132
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Appeal of discipline of thirty (30) days suspension imposed on Electrician R. Ward, Sunnyside Yard, N. Y. pursuant to Notice of Discipline dated
October 3, 1986.
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.
Carrier management received a tip that certain of its employees assigned to the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift in New York's Grand Central Terminal
were observed drinking in St. Ann's Bar near the station. At approximately
9:00 PM on September 8, 1986 two Supervisors entered the Bar and noticed
Claimant sitting at the bar with a mug of beer, about half full, in front of
him. Claimant was asked to return to the Terminal, where he was interviewed
by the Supervisors, after which he was removed from service for being in violation of Rule G.
At Claimant's Investigation the two Supervisors testified that they
observed Claimant to have slurred speech at the time and glazed eyes. Initially he signed a permission slip to undergo a blood alcohol test but later
asked to have the slip back and tore it up. Further, the Supervisors testified that at one point in their interview with Claimant, immediately prior to
his suspension pending Investigation, he admitted to drinking at the time.
Claimant testified that he had not been drinking and that the reason
that he recanted on the blood test was because he had been taking medication
for a cold and was not sure how this would affect the results.
Form 1 Award No. 11532
Page 2 Docket No. 11502
88-2-87-2-132
On the basis of the testimony adduced in the Hearing Carrier elected '
to believe that of the two Supervisors and not that of the Claimant.
We have carefully studied the testimony developed at the Investigation and conclude that adequate evidence exists to support a conclusion that
Claimant was drinking while on duty. It is recognized that neither Supervisor
observed Claimant drinking from the mug of beer on the bar in front of him and
that Claimant offered, what may be considered by some, plausible explanations
on much of the testimony and evidence. However, he did not, in this testimony, or the questioning of Carrier's witnesses, deny, or otherwise attempt to
impeach, their statements that he admitted that he had been drinking. This,
and other elements in the record, support the conclusion that Claimant was in
violation of Rule G.
We will not disturb the discipline assessed.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
00
Attest:
Nancy J.lB r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of August 1988.