---- Award Number 17515
Docket Number CL-18162
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Paul C. Dugan, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAM
SHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,
EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood (GL-6.560) that:
(a) The Southern Pacific Company violated the current Agreement
between the parties when on June 12, 1968, it unjustly dismissed Mrs. Lee DeKoker from service following investigation
held on June 5, 1968; and,
(bl The Southern Pacific Company shall now be required to restore Mrs. Lee DeKoker to service with all rights unimpaired;
to allow her one hour and twenty-five minutes compensation
May 17, 1968, and eight hours compensation May 20, 1968,
and each day thereafter until restored to service with all
rights unimpaired; and,
(cl For any month in which claim is here made for compensation
in behalf of Mrs. DeKoker the Southern
Pacific Company shall
make premium payments in her behalf in appropriate amounts
required under Travelers Group Policy Contract GA-23000 as
amended, for all benefits prescribed in said contract.
OPINION OF BOARD:
Claimant was notified by letter dated May 21,
1968 to report on May 24, 1968 for formal investigation to develop the
facts in connection with: "your allegedly having conducted herself in a
quarrelsome and uncivil manner in your relations with a fellow employe
during your tour of duty on May 17; also, in connection with your alleged
quarrelsome and insubordinate behavior when receiving instructions from
Supervisors of the department on May 17." Claimant was specifically
charged with violating Rules 801 and 802 of the Agreement.
Rule 801 provides in part:
"Employes who are insubordinate, . . . quarrelsome . . . will not
be retained in the service."
Rule 802 provides in part:
11.
. . Civil . . . department is required of all employes in their
dealings with . . . each other. Boisterous . . . or vulgar language is
forbidden."
After hearing was held, Claimant was dismissed from the service of
Carrier.
Claimant posits her defense to the charges involved herein on the
failure of Carrier to comply with the provisions of Rule 47 of the Agreement,
in that she was not given written notice of the "precise" charges against
her so that she could properly prepare to defend against said charge; that
the charges were not proven by Carrier; that the testimony given at the
hearing did not justify the penalty.
In regard to the procedural defect, we do not agree with Claimant that
the charge was not sufficiently "precise" so that she could properly prepare
her defense. She was apprised of the date of the alleged occurrence and the
fact that the names of her supervisors and a fellow employe were not given
in said notice does not in our opinion create a fatal defect in said notice. At
the hearing, the supervisors and fellow employe were identified and testified. Claimant, if she felt that the names of said persons caught her by
surprise, could have requested a continuance if she so desired. In this instance, she did not. Therefore, we feel that her contention in regard to
said alleged procedural defect is without merit.
In regard to the merits, the testimony adduced at the hearing showed
that Claimant, in becoming concerned over when her supervisor would be
leaving his office during working hours and where he was going, discussed
this matter with her supervisor, Carrier's Special Representative, Mr. J. T.
Bertram. Mr. Bertram, in regard to how Claimant would be notified as to
when he was leaving his office and where he was going, testified:
. I explained to Mrs. DeKoker that I would inform either
Mr. (Moore or Mr. Dale Smith, who would in turn notify her. Mrs.
DeKoker stated, `Then I am never to call you?' I said, "Mrs. DeKoker, I did not say that. I said I would inform you when I was
going to leave my office for an extended period of time.' Mrs. DeKoker then got up and said, `No one around here knows what they
are doing. You are all a bunch of jerks.' With that she left the
office."
Carrier's Chief, Solicitation Bureau, W. H. Moore, testified that he was
present in Mr. Bertram's office at the time Claimant made the above quoted
remarks as testified to by Mr. Bertram, and verified said statement as made
by Claimant.
Carol Lawton, Secretary, testified that on May 17, while sitting at her
desk, Claimant accused her of hanging up on her on the phone, insulting her;
that Claimant said she was rude, and while saying these things, Claimant
was screaming and pounding Miss Lawton's desk. Miss Lawton also testified
that Claimant called her a "bitch" and that Claimant was very argumentative and quarrelsome with her.
After carefully reviewing the testimony adduced at the hearing, it is
our conclusion that Carrier sustained its burden of proving by probative evidence that Claimant was guilty as charged.
Taking into consideration the seriousness of the charges and Claimant's past record, we feel that Carrier was justified in dismissing Claimant
from its service.
17515 2
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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 Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By
Order of Third Division
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of October 1969.
Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A.
17515 3