This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
In the facts of this case, the Claimant was naffed by letter dated October 21, 2005 to attend an Investigation into sperm, circumstances and possiible responsibility, if any, over an alleged altercation occurring October 20, 2005 in the St. Paul Mechanical Shops pang lot- The Investigation was held on November 4, 2005 with the right of the Clot to introdvax l information into the Hearing record. Medical neck and brain scans were provided to the Carrier off December 1, 20M. The Chief Medal Officer concluded that the treatment was not a cause d any `give behavior toward a fellow empWyee:" ~ By letter dated December 9, 2005, the Claimant was notified that the Carver corm that he was hivolved is workplace viobmoe: The Claimant was died dram service effective that date
The argues at bar follows as April 3; 2007 notice of appeal "on behalf of Machinist Gregg A. Johnson" by Floyd A. Johnson. The arga®ents raised by Floyd Johnson before the Board were strong and compelGngs but the Board must note the following,. First, we are unsure if Floyd Johnson was currently an attorney, but we are sure that he was not the Claimant, Machinist Gregory A. Johnson. Whatever his current position or relation, Floyd Johnson has no legal standing to file a Notice of intent to appeal to the Second Division. Under Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, appeals "may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division . . . . " Floyd Johnson is not a "party" under the Act. A party under Rule 30(c) is "the employee, carrier or duly authorized representative, viz., the labor organization." (See First Division Awards 24100, 24138, 25930 and 25921; Second Division Award 11550; Third Division Award 32992). Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed for procedural defect.
Even if, arguendo, this dispute was not procedurally defective, and we strongly hold that it is, the Board would still deny the claim. The Carrier presented substantial probative evidence that on the date of October 20, 2005, the Claimant was talking with Front Line Manager D. K. Nickolaus when Laborer J. R. Warren Form I Award No. 14002
walked up and was bluntly told by the Claimant to leave and did so, saying something that must have set off the Claimant. The testimony indicates that the Claimant qoiddp es3bed his car, moved to Warren and shoved him.
There is clear testimony that the shove resulted in *Jury. Warren fell backwards and clearly hurt his back. During testimony at the Hearing, Warren testified that he was still on a muscle relaxant and that "right now it [his back] is just throbbing." The Claimant engaged in a physical altercation that resulted in injury, for which the Claimant responded that he used "the least amount of force to end the situation." The Carrier naffs past discipli~ including inappropriate commentsy and a clear violation of the Carrier's Violence in the Workplace Policy to this set of factr.
Accordingly, bad we been able to consider the claim on its merits, are wootd most assuredly have denied it; because the Claimant's conduct violated Carrier Policy and dismissal would have been appropriate. However, given the procedural defect, the Board finds that the claim must be dismissed.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.