Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13710
Docket No. 13631
03-2-01-2-38
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Robert Richter when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northen Santa Fe Railway
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That in violation of the controlling Agreement, Electrician David A.
Terrell was unjustly dismissed by the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe
Railroad Company following an investigation held on May 3, 2000.
2. That the investigation held on May 3, 2000 was not a fair and
impartial investigation required by the terms of the current
Agreement.
3. That accordingly, the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad
Company be directed to return Electrician David. A. Terrell to its
service immediately and to make him whole with respect to all lost
wages, rights, benefits and privileges which were adversely affected
as a result of the investigation. Further, that all record of the
investigation and discipline assessed be removed from David A.
Terrell's 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 21, 1934.
Form 1 Award No. 13710
Page 2 Docket No. 13631
03-2-01-2-38
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
On May 16, 2000, the Carrier dismissed the Claimant from its service. As a
result of an Investigation held on May 3, 2000, the Carrier found that the Claimant
violated Rules S-28.6, S-28.17, S-28.13 and S-28.15 on April 15, 2000.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. On April 13, 2000, the Claimant asked
to be off on April 15, 2000. The Carrier's Foreman denied the request because two
Electricians had already been granted the day off.
On April 15, 2000, the Claimant called the Carrier to lay off sick. At 9:30 P.M.
the Claimant was seen tending bar at the Claimant's family emporium.
The Claimant argued he had a sore back and was seeing a chiropractor beginning;
April 12, 2000. Allegedly the doctor placed the Claimant on restricted duty. However,,
the record is void of any medical evidence as to the Claimant's condition. In fact the
Claimant worked April 13 and 14, and worked 64 hours in the eight day period
beginning April 18, 2000.
The Claimant is a short term employee with the Carrier. It is obvious from the
record the Claimant wanted to be off to work in the family business. When denied by
the Carrier, the Claimant lied to the Carrier Official by laying off sick.
The Carrier has met its burden in proving the Claimant violated its Rules. There
is no reason for the Board to overturn the action of the Carrier in this case.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Form 1 Award No. 13710
Page 3 Docket No. 13631
03-2-01-2-38
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of February 2003.