Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13220
Docket No. 13103
98-2-96-2-24
The Second Division consisted
of
the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert Richter when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood
of
Electrical Workers
( System Council No. 14
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That under the current Agreement, Electrician A.J. Morgan was
unjustly treated when he was suspended from service on February
4, 1995 pending investigation for alleged violation
of
Rule "L" and
(F-2)
of
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation's Rules
of
Conduct and terminated from service on March 3, 1995.
2. That accordingly, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation be
ordered to rescind the suspension and dismissal and compensate
Electrician A.J. Morgan for all lost wages due to the suspension and
dismissal with all rights unimpaired, including service and seniority,
vacation, payment
of
hospital and medical insurance, group
disability insurance, railroad retirement contributions, and loss of
wages to include interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum."
FINDINGS:
The Second Division
of
the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
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, 1934.
Form 1 Award
No.
13220
Page 2 Docket
No.
13103
98-2-96-2-24
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 was dismissed from the service of the Carrier on March 3, 1995 as a
result of an Investigation held on February 17, 1995.
Claimant was found to have violated Carrier Rules L and F2, which read:
"L. Obeying Instructions
Employees must obey instructions, directions, and orders from
AMTRAK supervisory personnel and officers except when confronted by
a clear and immediate danger to themselves, property, or the public.
Insubordinate conduct will not be tolerated.
2. Employees will not assault, threaten, harass, intimidate, fight, or
participate in any activity which could cause bodily injury to other
employees or members of the public while on duty or on AMTRAK
property or using AMTRAK equipment. Employees while on or off duty,
will not disrupt or interfere with other employees in the performance of
their duties."
A review
of
the transcript of the Investigation shows that the Claimant was working the
third shift on February 3, 1995, from 11:59 P.M. until 7:59 A.M. on February 4. When
given the work assignment for the night, the Claimant questioned why other Electricians
were not given as much to do. At approximately 6:30 A.M. the Foreman asked Claimant
if the work was finished. Claimant responded by cursing and threatening the Foreman.
Later at 7:15 A.M. the Claimant and the Foreman had another confrontation in
the break room at which time the Claimant threatened to "get" the Foreman outside the
gate. The Foreman telephoned the General Foreman after each incident. After the
second call, the General Foreman instructed the Foreman to tell the Claimant to wait
until the General Foreman got to work.
Form 1 Award No. 13220
Page 3 Docket No. 13103
98-2-96-2-24
When the General Foreman arrived, he and the Claimant had a verbal exchange,
and when the Claimant was instructed to go into the General Foreman's office, he
refused.
The Organization filed this claim alleging that the Claimant was unjustly treated
and dismissal was an abuse of managerial discretion.
While there was conflicting testimony at the Investigation, the Carrier argues it
proved the charges and that dismissal is warranted, particularly in light of the fact that
this discipline is the third in four years for the same type of offense.
The Hearing Officer is in the best position to determine the validity of the
testimony. There was no evidence in the record indicating that the Carrier had any
reason to trump up the charges against the Claimant. While the Board has elected not
to set forth the language used in the threats against the Foreman, suffice to say that the
record was full of vulgarities and Claimant's language was obscene.
There is no basis for the Board to overturn the actions of the Carrier.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of February 1998.