Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13099
Docket No. 13024-1
97-2-95-2-51
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert L. Hicks when award was rendered.
(John V. Poll
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAI11:
"1. That theAtchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company violated
the terms of the current :Agreement, particularly Rules 32, 39, 40, 42, 115.
117 and 118, when they arbitrarily and wantonly, wrongfully terminated
John Poll from service on June 9, 1994. Such action was without just cause
or a rule violation. No rule violation charge was made, thereby none
proven.
A. Breach of employment contract, in that Claimant was
hired, causing him to resign a job of some 14 years,
thereby completing his working career for the
Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company.
2. That, accordingly, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway
Company compensate John Poll for all time lost, including overtime,
making him whole from June 9, 1994 until returned to service, with fringe
benefits unimpaired, Railroad Retirement payments made, vacation
benefits, health and welfare benefits and all other benefits that have been
wrongful denied as a result of the wrongful termination and breach of
employment contract. That his personal record be cleared of this matter
and returned to service immediately, making him whole."
FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
Form I Award No. 13099
Page 2 Docket No. 13024-1
97-2_95_2_51
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
approved June 21, 193-1.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Claimant commenced service with the Carrier on April 11, 199.1. His last day of
,ervice was .tune 8. 199.1. which started at I 1:40 P11 and ended 8:00 Aft on June 9,
1994.
Claimant argues that he had sixty days of service, thus Rule 42 was no longer
applicable. The Carrier contends his application was disapproved on the 59th day which
was timely and proper pursuant to Rule 42.
Rule 42 reads as follows:
"... (a) Applicants for employment (individuals not having an
employment relationship with the Company) shall be required to furnish
information as may be desired to fully satisfy the Company's
representatives as to their fitness and competency for employment.
Their
employment may be terminated without formal investigation by
disapproval of application within sixty (60) calendar davs after the
applicant begins work.
(b) After an employe has been in service for more than sixty (60)
calendar days and an investigation develops that he has falsified his
application for employment he may be relieved from service by invoking
the provisions of Rule 40.
(c) Applicants for employment will be required to pass physical
examination by a company physician ...." (Emphasis added)
Form I .award No. 13099
Page 3 Docket No. 1302.1-I
97-2-95-2-51
lthough the disapproval letter of June 8, 199.1, was bare bones, it was in full
accord with the language of Rule
4?.
Later, while processing this dispute, Claimant was
advised why his employment application was disapproved.
Under the circumstances, Carrier's action of disapproving Claimant's application
for employment was timely and properly written as provided for in Rule -t2.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the t laimantls) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of January 1997.