Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13673
Docket No. 13559
02-2-00-2-35
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Edwin A. Benn when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railway Carmen Division
( Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Springfield Terminal Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the Committee of the Union that:
1. The Springfield Terminal Railway Company violated the terms of
the current agreement, in particular Rule 13.1 when they
arbitrarily suspended henry J. Satrowsky from service as a result
of an investigation held on July 2, 1999.
2. That, accordingly, the Springfield Terminal Railway Company be
ordered to compensate Carman Henry J. Satrowsky in the amount
of eight (8) hours pay for each workday he was withheld from
service commencing August 2, 1999 through and including August
4, 1999. Also, any reference to this discipline should be removed
from his personal record and file."
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.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Form 1 Award No. 13673
Page 2 Docket No. 13559
02-2-00-2-35
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
After Investigation, the Claimant received a three-day suspension by letter dated
July 28, 1999 for failing to apply an air brake slip.
The Claimant is a Carman at the Carrier's Car Repair Facility at East Deerfield,
Massachusetts. The record shows that on May 24, 1999, the Claimant was assigned to
perform a terminal air brake test on train EDPO. The Claimant performed the test, but
failed to leave an air brake slip with the train before going off duty. The Claimant had
to return to East Deerfield and provide the slip. As a result, the train was delayed for
two hours.
The Claimant does not deny failing to leave the air brake slip. According to the
Claimant " . . . I didn't leave an air slip. I admit to that." Tr. 28. See also, Tr. 34
where the Claimant testified:
"[QJ . . . Prior to 1900 hours when you had left the property, did you
apply an air brake slip to train EDPO?
[A] No."
The Claimant also admits that he was aware of the obligation to leave an air
brake slip. According to the Claimant, "If I'm not going to be on the premises, I have
to leave an air slip stating that I tested the train." Tr. 29.
Substantial evidence therefore supports the Carrier's determination that the
Claimant engaged in misconduct. The Claimant knew that he was required to leave an
air brake slip. The Claimant admittedly failed to do so.
However, we find that under the circumstances a three-day suspension was
excessive and arbitrary. The Claimant has a relatively good record. We believe that
a one-day suspension will get the message through to the Claimant that he must perform
his duties as required. The Claimant shall therefore be made whole less the
consequences of a one-day suspension.
Form 1 Award No. 13673
Page 3 Docket No. 13559
02-2-00-2-35
AWARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimants) 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 11th day
of
February, 2002.