STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Joint Council Dining Car Employer, Local 495 on the property of the Florida East Coast Railway (Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, Operating Company) for and in behalf of Chef J. E. Marrs, to be returned to service with seniority rights accumulated and unbroken and with compensation to the extent suffered, as a result of his unjust and unwarranted discharge in abuse of the Carrier's discretion and in violation of the current agreement, particularly Rule 2 thereof.
OPINION OF BOARD: It is the claim of the Joint Council Dining Car Employes that Chef J. E. Marrs was unjustifiably dismissed by the Carrier in violation of Rule 2 of their agreement.
On May 14, 1946, Cooks, General Superintendent Dining Cars wrote Chef Marrs to appear in the office of C. A. Castle, Assistant Superintendent Dining Cars, in Jacksonville, Florida, at 10:00 A. M. on Thursday, May 23, 1946, for a hearing on the following charges:
Charges (2) and (3) are in effect the same except charge (2) refers to train 5. Charge (2) relates to violations on April 12, 1946 and charge (3) relates to violations on April 14, 1946.
Rule 2 of the parties' effective agreement provides in part: "At a reasonable time prior to the hearing the employe shall be apprised of the precise charge against him, * * *" We find the letter of May 14, 1946 of the General Superintendent Dining Cars addressed to Chef Marrs fully complied with this requirement.
Rule 2 also provides: "Employer on seniority roster will not be disciplined or dismissed from service without a fair and impartial hearing." From the record we find that Chef Marrs had a fair and impartial hearing.
The principle question remains as to whether or not the record estabiishes that Chef Marrs is guilty of the charges placed against him. The evidence discloses that during the limited time the witnesses were in the dining car on each of the days the charges are made a number of patrons were served on verbal orders and without the use of meal checks. The only
fair and reasonable inference to be drawn from this situation is that whatever was thus served was obtained from the kitchen on verbal orders and without the chefs portion of a meal check.
Chef Mains was the responsible employe in charge of the kitchen. By Rule 18-(e) of the Manual for Instructions for Dining and Tavern Car Employes a Chef is charged with the following duty: "Chef's portion of meal check must be in the kitchen before any food or drink is given to waiter. * 4; *" A Chef serving or allowing food or drink to be served from his kitchen. in violation of the provisions of this paragraph shall be subject to dismissal." A copy of this Manual was received by Chef Marrs on September 4, 1943. On August 22, 1944, Carrier prepared a bulletin addressed to all Chefs, of which Chef Marrs received a copy, calling their particular attention to Rule 18-(e) of the Manual of Instructions and advising them of their duties thereunder.
We find the evidence establishes that Chef Marrs failed to carry out his duties as required by Rule 18-(e) of the Manual for Instructions for Dining and Tavern Car Employes and, that his dismissal by the Carrier was proper.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Carrier did not violate the Rules of the parties' effective agreement.