Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13297
Docket No. 13239
98-2-97-2-5
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. 16
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Soo Line Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
"1. That in violation of the controlling Agreement, in particular Rule
32, Shoreham Diesel Shop Electrician Oscar Miller was unjustly
suspended from the service of the CP/Soo Line Railroad Company
for ten (10) days.
2. That the investigation conducted on December 12, 1995 was not the
fair and impartial hearing required by the terms of the controlling
Agreement.
3. That Set-up Electrician Oscar Miller be made whole for all losses,
as provided in Rule 32 of the controlling Agreement. which were
incurred during the ten (10) day suspension, including all reference
to the subject assessment of discipline to be removed from this
personal record."
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 11, 1934.
Form 1 Award No. 13297
Page 2 Docket No. 13239
98-2-97-2-5
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 suspended from the service of the Carrier for ten days as a result
of a formal Investigation held on December 12, 1995. Claimant was found to have
violated Rule 19 which reads:
"1. In case an employee is unavoidably kept from work on account of
sickness or emervencv, he must notify his Foreman as early as
possible.
2. Permission to be absent from work for other cases must be obtained
from Foreman."
The Organization claims that the Hearin,! was not fair and impartial. Its point is
well taken. The Carrier had only one witness to testify, its Foreman. The Foreman
testified that the Claimant had called in about being absent. However, the Foreman did
not know what dates, nor did the testimonv reveal what was said on the calls.
Information was developed that another Foreman had accepted phone calls from the
Claimant but the Carrier did not have that Foreman testify. Finally, the Carrier
Hearing Officer never questioned the Claimant at the Hearing as to the charges.
The Awards are numerous that the Carrier is required to give an employee a fair
and impartial Hearing before assessing discipline. The Carrier did not do so in this case.
While it is apparent the Claimant has an absenteeism problem. this Board cannot
support the Carrier's actions in this case because of the lack of a fair and impartial
Hearing.
WARD
Claim sustained.
Form 1 Award No. 13297
Page 3 Docket No. 13239
98-2-97-2-5
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the
Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is
transmitted to the parties.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June 1998.