Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11941
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11696
90-2-89-2-6
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Belt Railway Company of Chicago
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That as a result of an investigation held on December 10, 1987,
Carmen M. Gulczynski and W. Kelly were assessed a record reprimand. Said
reprimands are unfair, unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of managerial discretion, and in violation of Rule 20 of the current working
Agreement.
2. That the Belt Railway Company of Chicago be ordered to remove the
record reprimands from the Carmen's personal files and to compensate them for
all time lost due to attending the investigation.
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.
Claimants were employed by the Carrier as Carmen at Chicago, Illinois.
On November 18, 1987, the Carrier notified the Claimants to appear
for a formal Investigation in connection with the following charges:
'.
. . to develop the facts and determine your
responsibility, if any, for your reported failure
to bad order BN 618417 for R2 thin flange during
your inspection of BN train on Track No. 11 in the
West Receiving Yard at approximately 5:35 p.m.,
November 11, 1987. This resulted in a delay to
BN 618417 as car was set out of GTW train on November
13, 1987."
Form 1 Award No. 11941
Page 2 Docket No. 11696
90-2-89-2-6
After two postponements, the Hearing took place on December 10, 1987. On
December 18, 1987, the Carrier notified the Claimants that they had been found
guilty of the charges and were assessed discipline of a reprimand. Thereafter, the Organization filed a Claim on Claimants' behalf, challenging their
discipline.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony, and we find that
the Carrier has not met its burden of proof that the Claimants were in violation of any Carrier Rules. The Carrier has indicated that the Claimants
failed to "be alert and devote themselves exclusively to the Carrier's service" and that "employees must not be indifferent to duty" in violation of
Rules H and J. However, a thorough review of the transcript does not reveal
that the Claimants were in violation of any Rule. It is true that there was a
car that had a serious problem and that the Claimants had been assigned to
inspect it. However, the Carrier has not proven, with sufficient evidence,
that the Claimants were in violation of any Carrier Rules nor has the Carrier
proven which, if any of the two Claimants was responsible .=or the poor inspection. Therefore, the Claim must be sustained.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy J. er,- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of November 1990.