THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6032) that:
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a Crew Caller, was suspended by Carrier for 15 days for his part in delaying departure of Train No. 20 on September 16, 1964 at Spencer, North Carolina.
The Organization's position is that Claimant was diligent in the performance of his duties, and that he should not he disciplined unless he was guilty of being negligent in the performance of his work; that even if Claimant could be considered guilty of causing a 1 or 2 minute delay to the train, mitigating circumstances, such as the conductor not giving the proper signal when he received the bills, preclude discipline; that Claimant was overloaded with work at the time, and further Claimant had difficulty locating Train No. 20.
It is undisputed that Train No. 20 was delayed and the record substantiates this fact. Claimant testified that when he arrived at the Old Spencer Depot to deliver the waybills to Train No. 20, he didn't see the train and then performed other duties; that when Assistant Trainmaster Young told him that he had better get the waybills to the train, he started walking without a light toward the rider and after having walked about 15 car lengths, Claimant hesitated to go any further due to not having a light with him; that as he saw Train No. 20 jerk as if pulling out, Claimant immediately contacted Yardmaster Cecil and informed him that he still had the waybills and by that time the train stopped.
It is clear from the evidence shown in the record that Claimant was responsible for the initial delay of Train No. 20 in departing Spencer, when he failed to deliver the waybills to the train's conductor prior to its initial departure at 5:04 A. M. Claimant attempts to excuse himself on the grounds that other employes contributed to the additional delay of the train's departure; however, this fact does not relieve Claimant of being responsible in initially delaying the train.
This Board has repeatedly held that our function in discipline cases is not to substitute our judgment for the company or decide the matter in accord with what we might or might not have done had it been ours to determine, but to pass upon the question whether, without weighing it, there is some substantial evidence to sustain a finding of guilty. A careful reading of the record in this instance shows that there was substantial evidence to sustain a finding of guilty against Claimant.
In regard to the penalty assessed in the case, the record clearly shows that the action of the Carrier with respect thereto was not so unjust, unreasonable or arbitrary so as to constitute an abuse of Carrier's discretion in imposing said penalty for said violation. Therefore, we must deny the claim.
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 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