NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-19498
(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
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:. Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6994)
that:
(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 imposed
discipline of dismissal upon R. Small, Extra Baggageman, Baggage Department,
Pennsylvania Station, Baltimore, Maryland, effective August 15, 1967.
(b) R. Small's record be cleared of the charges brought against him.
(c) R. Small be compensated in accordance with Rule 7-A-1(d) for all
monetary loss sustained. (Docket 2456)
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, an Extra Baggage man at Pennsylvania Station,
Baltimore, Maryland was notified to attend a trial at the
Baltimore Ticket Office, Pennsylvania Station, on Monday, August 14, 1967, at
8:30 A.M. in connection with the following charge:
"Failure to report for duty as Baggageman, Pennsylvania
Station, Baltimore, Maryland, 4:00 P.M. and reporting for
duty late as Baggageman, Pennsylvania Station, Baltimore,
Maryland, 12:00 P.M., August 5, 1967."
Neither the Claimant nor his representative attended the trial which
was held as scheduled on August 14, 1967 and no one appeared at the trial to move
for a delay or postponement thereof.
The Claimant was found guilty of the charge and was dismissed from service, previous discipline reco
The Organization argues that Claimant was dismissed from service without
a fair and impartial trial because he was tried in absentia. Claimant eventually
showed up for the trial one hour late but by that time it was over. Claimant's
representative did not show up apparently because he was waiting for Claimant.
The Board is of the view that Claimant ought to have been present at
the time of the trial, or, at the very least, should have requested a union
official to appear at the trial on his behalf requesting a delay or postponement.
Award Number 19637 Page 2
Docket Number CL-19498
While Claimant alleges that he spoke to a female in the Ticket Agent's
office saying that he would be late, there is nothing in the record which gives
the name of the woman or the time of the call. Nor is there any independent
evidence in the record verifying the allegation of Claimant that the call was made.
In the light of all the circumstances, we are compelled to hold that
Claimant was not denied a fair and impartial trial.
The facts out of which the charges in this case arose are set forth in
the paragraphs below.
The record indicates that Claimant was supposed to work from 4 P.M. to
12 midnight on August 5, 1967, but that he did not show up for that assignment.
He called in between 3 P.M. and 4 P.M. saying that he was waiting for the bus
but nothing further was heard from him until 6:30 P.M. nor was his absence ever
explained. At 6:30 P.M. he asked permission to report for work at midnight and
was given permission to do so. Claimant, however, did not report at midnight
and was not located by his foreman until 12:50 A.M. at which time he was still ithe locker room.
The Board is persuaded that Claimant is guilty of the charge levied
against him and, when Claimant appealed the discipline imposed upon him, he admitted his guilt and r
The Organization has argued to this Board that the discipline assessed
was too severe.
The General Rule is that the quantum of discipline imposed in a particular case by Carrier should no
record is far from good. He has been disciplined on ten previous occasions, three
of which involved offenses similar to those we are concerned with in this case.
In view of the foregoing, we find the claim to be without merit and
it is denied.
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 Employee involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as approved June 21, 1934;
Award Number 19637 Page 3
Docket Number CL-19498
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: ~ ~ . '~ i
Executive Secretara~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1973.
I
J
-·:.s,.xx~a~