(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, Jervis Langdon, Jr., ( and Willard Wirtz, Trustees of the Property of (Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor



(a) The Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, effective May 1, 1942, except as amended, particularly Rules 6-A-1 to 7-A-1, inclusive, when it held out of service S. C. Cancilla, Baggage Department, Pennsylvania Station, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl discipline of dismissal upon S. C. Cancilla, effective May 14, 1968.

(b) Discipline of dismissal from service imposed on S. C. Cancilla be removed from his service record.

(c) S. C. Cancilla be compensated in accordance with Rule 7-A-1(d) for all monetary loss sustained. (Docket 2472)

OPINION OF BOARD: The claimant had been an employe of the Carrier for some
thirty-one years and immediately prior to October 30,
1967 he occupied official position of Passenger Agent at Pittsburgh, Pennsyl
vania.

On October 30, 1967, claimant was relieved from the position of Passenger Agent. He attempted to exercise his seniority as Assistant Foreman in the Baggage Departme at which time he was advised in writing that he was being held out of service pending investigation he was notified to attend a trial on January 9 on the following charges:





















The trial scheduled to begin on January 9, 1968, was postponed ana begun on January 16, 1968, and was concluded on April 29, 1968. A copy of the transcript, consisting of over 1100 pages, has been made a part of the record. On May la, 1968, claimant was notified of his dismissal from the service on the basis of the first five charges.

While the manner in which the trial was conducted may not be considered exemplary, from either the C and appears to have been unduly prolonged, the claimant and his representative were permitted that they desired. We, therefore, do not find that claimant was denied any of his substantive rights by the manner in which the trial was conducted. Neither is there any basis for the contention that the Notice of Trial was improper and prohibited the claimant from presenting a proper defense.

As claimant held seniority under the Clerks' Agreement and was attempting to exercise seniority under that Agreement, it was proper for the Carrier to proceed under Rule 6 of the Agreement. It can not properly be contended that the Carrier violated the Agreement by affording the claimant the procedural protection contained in Rule 6.

It is well settled by prior awards of this Board that in disciplinary proceedings the Board will not judgment for that of the Carrier where there is substantial evidence to support the charges. Applyin that the,- was substantial evidence, even though disputed, to support the five charges on which the claimant was dismissed from the service. Even the,, this Referee is reluctant to sustain dismissal of an employe with years of



service such as the claimant had, it cannot properly be said that on the basis of the record the penalty was excessive, or that the actions of the Carrier were arbitrary, capricious or in bad faith. We will, therefore, deny the claim.





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










ATTEST: ~~.
Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of November 1972.