STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant entered Carrier's service as telegrapher December 4, 1947 and resigned on June 3, 1948. He was re-employed as a telegrapher on the Los Angeles Division June 18, 1948. In June 1951 he traded positions and seniority with San Joaquin Division Telegrapher, R. w. Marshall with seniority of February 20, 1947. He established seniority date as train dispatched on September 25, 1951.
On September 30, 1968 while Claimant was regularly assigned train dispatcher in the Carrier's Los Angeles, California train dispatching office, he was reported to be involved in a serious rule violation while working as a dispatcher. The nature of the alleged rule violation has been, in the record, assiduously factually undisclosed by either party. Neither party, however, has denied that there was a serious rule violation. From the record we must conclude that one did in fact occur and did involve Claimant.
The record reflects some disagreement on some unimportant details but the facts material and relevant, of probative value to the issue, are firmly established.
On October 1, 1968, Claimant was approached by his immediate supervisor concerning the alleged serious rule violation in Claimant's handling of train orders on the preceding day and was informed that a decision had been made to hold a formal investigation and hearing. The supervisor, it appears, gratuitously, then suggested that Claimant consider offering to Carrier relinquishment of his seniority rights as train dispatcher on the condition that Carrier continue him in service as a telegrapher; thus, to avoid an investigation of the alleged serious role violation with its potential adverse consequences to Claimant. Claimant was told to think about it until the next dayto take it home and talk it over with his family.
On October 2, Claimant stated to his supervisor that the proposal was acceptable and signed the following statement which was witnessed by his Local Chairman:
The statement was accepted on the same day by Carrier's Superintendent to whom it was addressed.
In paragraph 1 of the Claim before us Petitioning organization alleges that "Carrier solicited and obtained relinquishment of train dispatcher seniority rights from Train Dispatcher John D. Morgan (Claimant) such action being one of coercion conducted in an atmosphere of threat and duress." (Emphasis supplied.)
As a culmination of the procedural handling of Petitioner's averment on the property the parties agreed:
From our review of the record we find: (1) the parties were afforded due process; (2) there is no evidence Carrier obtained Claimant's relinquishment of Claimant's train dispatcher seniority rights by "coercion conducted in an atmosphere of threat and duress"; and (3) there is evidence that after a reasonable period of thought Claimant, for reasons known to him, not disclosed in the record; and, for preservation of his own ends; and, assured continuity of the employer-employee relationship, did, of his own free will, relinquish his train dispatcher seniority rights. Under such circumstances Claimant's decision was of his volition at his own election, unimpaired by any contractual bar or procedure requirements.