PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES


THE UNION TERMINAL COMPANY (DALLAS, TEXAS)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes, that the Carrier (The Union Terminal Company, Dallas, Texas) violated and continues to violate the agreement extant between the parties in that:





OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was a Red Cap with approximately eight years of service prior to his dismissal on November 12, 1957. His years of service familiarized him with the instructions and rules governing the handling of hand baggage to and from the trains. On July 18, 1955, Circular No. 10 was reissued and provided in instruction No. 2:




8845-2 487

The concluding paragraph of this circular read Red Caps are forewarned:



On November 9, 1957, the Claimant was observed moving baggage to the cab stand. This baggage-twelve pieces in all-was the property of three different passengers.


An inspection of this baggage by Assistant to General Manager Thrower, who had gone to the cab stand, was made in the presence of the cab starter, a Mr. Greenwell, and revealed that five of these twelve pieces of baggage were not tagged in accordance with the above instructions. The failure to tag these pieces of luggage was called to the attention of the Red Cap, Mr. Coleman Tucker, Jr. He immediately affixed three tags to the three pieces of luggage belonging to the first passenger, and shortly thereafter, in the presence of Mr. Thrower, he tagged the remaining two bags and delivered them to their owners.


Three days after his failure to tag these bags it was brought to the attention of the Carrier, and Claimant was notified of his dismissal from the service. On the following day, November 13, 1957, Claimant personally requested that an investigation be convened to reconsider his dismissal.


In compliance with this request and under provisions of Agreement under Rule 13, Claimant was notified that his requested investigation would be held and would consider his alleged failure to tag the five pieces of luggage in question. At the same time he was also informed of his right to select a representative of his choice and that he could produce any witnesses that he might desire.


During Mr. Tucker's appearance as a witness, he admitted that he had five pieces of untagged luggage on his cart on the day involved as reported by Mr. Thrower. His only explanation as to why there were no tags on this luggage was that the tag somehow fell off of one of the pieces of luggage, that the tags for two of the bags were mistakenly affixed to two other bags which bad already been tagged, and that he did not have sufficient time to tag the remaining two bags because they had just then been placed on his cart by a passing Pullman porter.


So far as the first three bags are concerned, Messrs. Thrower and Greenwell, both testified that none of the other nine bags on Claimant's baggage had two tags on them, and that there was no evidence indicating a tag had fallen off one of these bags. With respect to the remaining two bags Messrs. Thrower and Greenwell, both testified that these bags were on Claimant's cart when he pulled up to the cab stand. They denied that these bags were placed on the cart at the cab stand by a Pullman Porter.


During the investigation the officer in charge agreed to recess the investigation so as to give the Claimant an opportunity to produce this Pullman porter but Mr. Tucker's representative replied:




This was not the only instance during the course of the investigation that the Organization indicated it had no desire to produce witnesses. The record shows that the following testimony was given by Mr. Tucker.

8845-3 488












This investigation resulted in a decision slated November 19, 1957, upholding Claimant's dismissal. This decision wrs appealed, and during the hearing held on this appeal the Organization requested that the contents of the following affidavit be made a part of the record of investigation:















This request was denied, as was the appeal, the following reasons being given.

8845-4 489



Your attention is directed to the followin- questions and answers at the close of the investigation:











The Organization states that the investigation was not as complete as it should have been:


884 5-5 490

The above contention must be rejecten because it is clear that when asked if










Then again when the offer was made to recess and to call in the Pullman porter as a witness it was Claimant's decision as well as his representative's. If it was not his decision he was in a position to take exception when his representative stated:




It would be a presumption to say that she Carrier was obliged to contact the unnamed Pullman porter and examine him after the investigation was closed. Here the Carrier representative offered to recess the hearing to afford Tucker an opportunity to secure the testimony of the Pullman porter but his representative stated:




In rejecting this proposal, it was the Claimant's representative, not the Carrier's, we think, who was arbitrary and unreasonable in refusing a continuance.


The record discloses sufficient competent evidence, which sustains the Carrier in their dismissal of said Coleman Tucker, Jr., for his failure to attach his check or checks to the pieces of baggage before moving same on the 9th day of November, 1957.


The Carrier did give the Claimant every opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses in his own behalf and effered to recess the hearing to a later date so that he might bring in the Pullman porter, but Claimant and his representative refused.


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



5845-6 491



    Claim denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: A. Ivan Tummon

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of June, 1959.