PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
JOINT COUNCIL DINING CAR EMPLOYES UNION, LOCAL 351

CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of Joint Council Dining Car Employes Local 351 on the property of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company, for and on behalf of Wash M. Perry, that he be restored to service with seniority and vacation rights unimpaired, and compensated for net wage loss since May 6, 1960, account of Carrier dismissing claimant from service on that date in abuse of its discretion and in violation of the existing agreement.


OPINION OF BOARD: Wash M. Perry was dismissed from Carrier service on May 6, 1960, as a result of an investigation held on May 3, 1960.


It is admitted in the record by the Claimant that he was called on the morning of March 23, 1960 for chef assignment on Train 401-400, Car 6959 with reporting time of 9:30 A.M. on March 24, 1960 that he accepted the assignment but failed to report therefor. His excuse for not reporting was that he overslept.


Rule 8 of the Rules and Instructions for Dining Car Employes, reads:

"Employes must report at the designated time and place for their assignments and all assignments must be fully completed, they must devote themselves exclusively to the company's service, attend to their duties during the prescribed hours, obey instructions from the proper authority, they must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties with or substitute others in their place without proper authority."

As a result of the investigation Claimant was dismissed from Carrier Service, per Discipline Notes May 6, 1960.


Employes contend that it is impossible to determine whether Carrier dismissed him solely for failing to appear to cover his assignment on March 24, 1960, or because he had a part time job. There is no question but what Claimant was dismissed because he violated Rule 8 quoted above See Awards 6277-8502 and Award 5189.


Employes claim that to impose upon Claimant for the violation charged, the most severe penalty within its power, would constitute a flagrant abuse of



10308-2)~

its discretion. While Claimant's guilt of the offense in this one specific instance might not be considered to be sufficient to warrant the penalty of dismissal, his guilt of the offense considered in the light of his previous poor record justified the dismissal penalty.








The record shows that Claimant was discharged after an investigation in March 1959, because of his unavailability for extra service in January and February 1959.


The Carrier considering Claimants past record was justified in dismissing Claimant.


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 Employe involved in thus dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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













Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of January 1962.