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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On September 16, 1996, Claimant was notified to appear for an Investigation an September 25, 1996, concerning an incident which occurred on August 20, 1996. The notice charged Claimant with verbally harassing a Coach Cleaner and with delaying tile Coach Cleaner in the performance of his duties. The Hearing was held as scheduled. On September 27, 1996, Claimant was advised that the Hearing Officer had found that the charges were proven and that Claimant had been assessed a five day suspension. During handling on the property, Carrier determined that the charge of delaying tile Coach Cleaner's work had not been proven. Nevertheless, Carrier did not disturb the five day suspension.
The Organization argues that Carrier failed to prove the charges. The Organization maintains that testimony by the Coach Cleaner was not credible. Furthermore, the Organization contends that Carrier erred by not disturbing the penalty even after conceding that the charge of delaying the Coach Cleaner had not been proven.
Carrier contends that it proved the charge of harassment by substantial evidence. Carrier urges that the Board defer to the Hearing Officer's credibility determinations. Carrier further argues that the harassment charge is sufficient to support the five day suspension. Carrier also objects the Organization's claim for interest on backpay.
The Board has reviewed the record carefully. We find that Carrier proved the charge of harassment by substantial evidence. The Coach Cleaner testified that Claimant intimidated him, saying, "You can't hide from me," and "I can give you a bad time anytime I want." The Coach Cleaner also testified that Claimant kicked the door to the electrical locker housing the outlet into which the Coach Cleaner's vacuum cleaner had been plugged. Form 1 Award No. 13400
Although Claimant denied making the statements or kicking the door, as an appellate body we generally defer to credibility determinations made on the property. In the instant case, the Foreman corroborated the Coach Cleaner's testimony by testifying that the door was closed with the vacuum still plugged in and by testifying that the Coach Cleaner reported the incident to him right after it happened and appeared to be frightened and upset. Under these circumstances, we see no reason to disturb the decision on the property to credit the Coach Cleaner's testimony over the Claimant's.
During the appeals on the property, Carrier conceded that the second charge had not been proven. Our review of the record reveals that the five day suspension was based on the Hearing Officer's findings of guilt on both charges. Because one of those two charges was not proven, we will order that the discipline be reduced to a two day suspension and that Claimant be compensated for lost wages in excess of a two day suspension. However, we observe that the Agreement does not provide for an award of interest on lost wages. Therefore, the claim for interest will be denied.
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.