Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11598
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11550
88-2-88-2-15
The Second Division consisted of the .regular members and
in
,:,
addition Referee Paul C. Carter when award was rendered. rc.,
,.
. .. ~, _, ._
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Appeal of thirty (30) day:suspension,imposed on Avon ..-
Diesel Terminal, Indiana Electriciatr;:T. Alexander by the
Consolidated Rail Corporation, effective by Notice of Discipline dated December 2, 1986.
FINDINGS: u
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 employee involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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 employed as an electrician at Carrier's Avon, Indiana,
Diesel Terminal. Following a trial conducted on November 19, 1986, Claimant
was assessed discipline of thirty days deferred suspension for:
"Failure to properly perform your assigned
duty while inspecting the traction motors of Loco.
6741 during its P.M. Inspection, August 8, 1986, as
revealed by the damaged #1, lES, & #6 traction
motors found November 7, 1986, at Collinwood Diesel
Terminal, with excessive short brushes."
A copy of the transcript of the trial conducted on November 19, 1986,
has been made a part of the record. Claimant was present throughout the trial
and was represented by the Local Chairman of the Organization. We have reviewed the transcript and find that none of Claimant's substantive agreement
rights was violated. While some question was raised about Claimant having
additional representation, the record does not show that any formal request
was made for postponement of the trial prior to its beginning, and in answer
to a direct question by the conducting officer as to whether Claimant was
ready to proceed, the Claimant responded "Yes."
Form 1
Page, 2
Award No. 11598
Docket No. 11550
88-2-88-2-15
The i:oical Chalzmati- Alleged"a vidl$tion of hale 6, but did not specify
how he considered `the rule was eAblatoid. -
We find that .t`here was substantial evidence in the trial by Carrier's
Shop Mangger At Avon,' the 'Shop Manager of Cbilihwood Diesel Terminal, and the
Training and Development Specialist for the Mechanical Department, located at
Collinwood"D3i~se1 Terminal;
in supporb of
the charge;against Claimant. "Substantial evidence" has been set forth by the Supreme Court of the United
States as:
"SuAstantiaI~'~evidence
is
more than a mere
scintf3la.` It
means
such:reld-vaAt evidence as a
reasonable dirid mfg'hf-accept
as
adequate to support
a~conclusion."
fGonsol:
Ed. Co. vs Labor Board
305
L1: S. , Y97 ; 229. )
There is evidence that the cause of the damage to the traction motors
of Unit 6741 was the result of an improper inspection by Claimant during its
P. M. inspection;on August
8, 1986.v
A
journeyman
mechanic must take responsibility for the work performed by him.' Thae`vz~e4pon4ibility cannot be shifted
to a foreman or anyone else.
Based on our `'review of the entire record, we find no proper basis for
interfering with the~di5cipline imposed by the Carrier.
Claim denied:
Attest:
~. ,eE~ _
Nancy J er - Executive secretary
» -_
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of November
1988.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division