NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on St. Louis Southwestern Railway of Texas:
OPINION OF BOARD: This is a discipline case. The employe was dismissed for "* ° * failure to be in proper condition and to properly perform your duties as Agent-Telegrapher on February 22, 1951, and for your violation of Rule 'G' of the Uniform Code of Operating Rules and failure to be in condition to properly perform your duties while working as Agent-Telegrapher on March 2, March 5, March 6, March 7, and March 8, 1951, * * *."
In their "position" before the referee the Labor Members quote Article 27 of the Telegraphers' Agreement which is the discipline rule, and an attempt is made to point out specifically what provisions of the rule were alleged to have been violated. The Organization in its original submission says, "This dispute was handled in the regular order up to and including
the highest officer designated by the Carrier to whom such matters may be appealed," which would seem to indicate that no exception is made to procedural matters required by the rule.
The real contention of the Organization is that the charges were not proved, and effort is made to discredit most of the testimony appearing in the transcript of the hearing which supports the charge. Plea is also made for leniency because of the Agent's long years of service with the Carrier.
During the first week in March, 1951, H. M. Chapman, a traveling Auditor of the Carrier, was engaged in making a check on the Galesville Station.
He testified at the hearing that, "At the time I met Mr. Aven I could detect the smell of alcoholics on his breath and as the day went by the odor became stronger and on March 5 I will say Aven was in fair condition, but could still smell alcoholics on his breath. Tuesday and Wednesday I will state, this was on March 6th and 7th, I found him to be in worse condition on those two dates. And on Thursday morning, March 8th, Mr. Aven appeared to be in fair condition and did not detect any alcoholic odor until noon when Mr. Aven went out for lunch when he returned the odor was very strong." Chapman also stated that for a number of hours during this time Aven was sitting in his car about a block from his office. There was considerable corroborative testimony given by other witnesses.
Complaint is made that the dismissal is harsh and unreasonable, in which connection we have the right and duty to consider his past record. He had been dismissed on at least three previous occasions for violation of Rule G, and at another time he was picked up by the city night watchman on a complaint that he was intoxicated and molesting certain persons. Following an investigation in that case he was allowed to continue in service on the promise that he would never "be guilty of drinking any more beer or any other intoxicants at any time in the future," and that he would resign if he was ever accused of using intoxicants again. We of course are aware that it is rough treatment to force a man to keep such a promise when his job is at stake, nevertheless the Carrier is under no legal obligation to keep him on the job if he cannot leave liquor alone.
We conclude that the truth of the charges was sufficiently established and coupled with the man's record that the discipline of dismissal was justified.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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