NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
John B. Criswell, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION DIVISION, BRAC
NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC, on the Norfolk & Western Railway
Company, TC-5699, that:
1. Carrier violated the terms of the Agreement between the
parties when on Friday, June 6, 1969 it conducted a formal investigation and issued a letter of censure or Reprimand dated June 20, 1969
against the record of Dispatcher L. E. Ramsey.
2. Carrier further violated the terms of the Agreement between
the parties when it failed to render a decision within ten (10) days
after the hearing.
3. Carrier further violated the terms of the Agreement between
the parties when it willfully refused to furnish the dispatcher
(L. E. Ramsey) or his representative a copy of the transcript of the
evidence taken at the hearing.
4. Carrier shall now be required to remove and expunge the
Letter of Censure or Reprimand dated June 20, 1969 from the record
of Dispatcher L. E. Ramsey.
5. Carrier shall further be required to furnish Dispatcher L. E.
Ramsey and/or his representative with a copy of the transcript of the
evidence taken at the hearing or formal investigation held on Friday,
June 6, 1969.
OPINION OF BOARD:
Claimant Ramsey was instructed by letter dated
May 28, 1969, to report to the Office of Superintendent at Roanoke, Virginia,
on May 29, 1969, for a formal investigation on the following charge:
"Your responsibility in connection with train 103-South, passing
Northward Stop-and-stay dwarf signal No. 84R, resulting in damage
to crossover switch at Glasgow, Virginia, Monday, May 26, 1969."
Claimant was one of several employes so charged. With this action Carrier
set in motion its proper procedure under Rule 111/2 to discipline employes
covered by the Agreement between these parties.
Paragraph b of Rule 11% says:
"A dispatcher against whom charges are preferred, or whom may
consider himself unjustly treated, shall be granted a fair and impartial
hearing before the Superintendent or his representative (other than
Chief Dispatcher) within ten days of notice by either party. Such
notice shall be in writing and shall clearly specify the precise charge
or nature of the complaint. He shall have the right to be represented
by a dispatcher and/or any authorized representative, as he may
choose. He shall be given a reasonable opportunity to secure the
presence of necessary witnesses. The decision shall be rendered within
ten days after the date of hearing."
The investigation was held on June 6, 1969, following a postponement.
Fourteen days after the investigation, June 20, 1969, Superintendent
Castner wrote Claimant:
"It is very evident that this accident resulted from a complete
lack of understanding between you of the move to be made.
Due to circumstances involved in this particular case, discipline
will not be applied against your records. However, you will be
expected to carry out your duties in a responsible manner in the
future, and no further incident of this nature will be tolerated."
Thus, Carrier's decision was not rendered within the time required.
Paragraph D of Rule 11% says:
"A transcript of the evidence taken at the hearing will be made
and a copy will, upon request, be furnished the dispatcher or his
representative."
On June 9, 1969, District Chairman Carter wrote Carrier requesting the
transcript. On July 23, 1969, Assistant Superintendent Cabiness replied for
the Carrier:
"The investigation referred to was not made a matter of record,
nor was a transcript made. No discipline was applied, and no entries
were made against the personal records of any employe involved."
It is the position of the Organization that Claimant's job and future rights
were put in jeopardy when the action was formally begun against him under
Rule 111h and that he is entitled under that Rule to appeal. It is the Carrier's
position that there was no discipline assessed, that the letter dated June 20
was not made a part of his record and thus it is not required to supply
a transcript.
Under Rule 11%(d) Carrier is required to make a transcript of the
"evidence taken at the hearing" and make it available upon request.
There is no monetary part of this claim. It only asks that the letter of
June 20 not become a part of Claimant's record. Carrier tells us it is not.
In sustaining this claim we direct the Carrier to follow its statement in the
July 23, 1969, letter, supra, concerning the June 20 letter not being made a
18370 2
Part of Claimant's record; and reiterate the Carrier's obligation under
Rule 11Y2 (d).
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 violated.
AWARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion and Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of January, 1971.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
18370 3