NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20763
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
( Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-7638) that:
1. Carrier violated Rule 18 of the Clerks' Agreement, when,
on August 6, 1973, following investigation, ii: disciplined Clerk Robert
E. Hollowell, after failing to sustain the charge as set forth in the
caption of the anrestigation (Carrier's File 205-4785).
i
2. Carrier's action in assessing Mr. Hollowell's personal
record with thirty (30) days' deferred suspension was arbitrary, harsh
and an abuse of discretion.
3. Carrier shall now be required to expunge the discipline
assessed and all reference thereto from Mr. Hollowell's personal record.
OPINION OF BOARD: This is a discipline dispute involving Claimant's
alleged falsification of the reasons he gave for not
protecting his assignment on June 30, 1973.
Petitioner raises serious questions concerning the conduct of
the investigatory hearing in this case. The record reveals that the
conduct of the hearing Officer was far from exemplary in that he did impede Claimant's representativ
I)
raise with Carrier's witness and in other respects as well. Although we
do not condone the conduct of the hearing Officer, on balance, we do not
find that it was sufficiently prejudicial per se to upset the discipline
in the case.
1
The crux of this dispute is whether
of
not there was sufficient
evidence adduced in the investigation to support Carrier's conclusion
that claimant was guilty of falsification. The record indicates that
Carrier's entire btisis for the charge and conclusion of guilt is that
Superginteadc.at Lang caw Claimant eating dinner at a restaurant at about
7:00 P. M. and walk out of the restaurant - some seven hours after
he had callcd in sick. Th_°. record contains Tusefuted testimony that
Claimant was prone. to lctier bask problems and had injured his back on
the morning in qua;tion while moving furniture, causing him to rest and
take medication. Carrier believes this is not credible in view of the
fact that he ::as
=n
a rsetaurant the same e-renlng: "...Claimant's story
is not lueliovsble." We do mot agrea with Perrier's conclusion; there
Award Number 20766 page 2
Docket Number CL-20763
was literally no evidence presented to substantiate Carrier's "belief".
It is well settled in this industry as well as in the entire labor management field that the burden
upon the employer; there must be convincing evidence, not merely suspicion, to establish the guilt o
"We are forced to conclude that the dismissal of
claimant was not supported by substantive evidence. The
dismissal was based on testimony totally uncorroborated.
The decision stemmed from nothing more than surmise and
speculation and cannot be allowed to stand."
Similarly in the instant case carrier has relied on surmise
and suspicion rather than probative eviu=ace to support its conclusion
of Claimant's guilt. Consequently Carrier has failed to satisfy its
burden of proof and the Claim must be sustained.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustmaat Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, !Lads and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the
Employes
involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes within th- meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That thia Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTE°E:
~,,.~6'~
1
Ex~a~utive secretary
Dated at Chi=ago, Illinois, this 18th day of ,July 1975.