Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13968
Docket No. 13859
08-2-NRAB-00002-080012
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
William R. Miller when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railway Carmen Division of TC1U
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Springfield Terminal Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Springfield Terminal Railway Company violated the
terms of our current Agreement, in particular Rule 13.3, when
they failed to compensate Carman Mark Riley in the amount of
five (5) hours at the straight time rate of pay for being in
attendance at the hearing for Carman Ty C. Jarret.
2. That, accordingly, the Springfield Terminal Railway be required
to compensate Carman Mark Riley in the amount of five (5)
hours at the straight time rate of pay. This is the amount he
would have earned had the Carrier not violated our
Agreement."
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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 13968
Page 2 Docket No. 13859
08-2-NRAB-00002-080012
On March 27, 2007, the Claimant was called as a witness for the formal
Investigation of Carman Jarret by the Organization. Claimant appeared and
testified to what he heard and saw on March 20, 2007 at the Car Shop in Lawrence,
MA, but was not compensated for his attendance.
It is the Organization's position that the Claimant provided testimony which
was relevant to Carman Jarret's defense and because of that he should have been
compensated for attending the Investigation. It argued that the Carrier may refuse
to call requested witnesses, initially, but when it is shown that the witnesses called
by the Organization are material to developing the facts, the witness should be
compensated in the same manner as if they had been called by the Carrier to testify.
It relies upon First Division Awards 14729 and 19910 which it argued stands for the
aforementioned proposition.
It is the position of the Carrier that it made the Claimant available for the
Investigation pursuant to the Organization's request, but it did not believe his
testimony was necessary. It argued that Rule 13.3 provides that an employee will
have the opportunity to secure the presence of witnesses in his own behalf and at his
own expense. Consequently, even though it permitted Claimant to attend the
Hearing, it is not responsible for paying for his attendance as he was the
Organization's witness, therefore, the claim should be denied.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed the record which included a copy of the
formal Investigation that the Claimant testified at. After reading that Investigation
it is clear that Claimant was a material witness who had valuable information
concerning Carman Jarret. The Organization's argument that Awards 14729 and
19910 are on point is correct. For example Award 14729 ruled the following:
"An employee accused, as the result of an incident which requires an
Investigation, may request that the carrier call certain witnesses
believed by the accused to be material and necessary to develop all of
the pertinent facts. The Carrier, acting in good faith, may refuse to
call the requested witnesses. The accused may then call the desired
witness or witnesses and in the event that at the Investigation it is
shown that the witnesses so called by the accused, contributes
testimony "necessary to developing the facts rezardim the incident,
Form I Award No. 13968
Page 3 Docket No. 13859
08-2-NRAB-00002-080012
then the witness should be compensated in the same manner as if he
had been called by the Carrier." Underlining our emphasis)
The Board finds and holds that Claimant had pertinent information which
was necessary in developing all of the essential facts for the Investigation of Carman
Janet and because of that the claim will be sustained as presented.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
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 23rd day of October 2008.