NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20818
William M. Edgett, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
( Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-7653) that:
(1) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it
dismissed Agent-Operator John E. Shea from service effective August 9, 1973,
and
(2) Carrier shall, as a result, be required to reinstate AgentOperator Shea to service with all righ
all wage loss suffered.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was removed from Carrier's service after an
investigation which Carrier found substantiated charges
which dealt with irregularities in Claimant's handling of cash and tickets
in his position as Agent-Operator. Claimant stresses several points in
seeking to have the Board overturn Carrier's findings and action.
The first point relied on by the employee is that the same Carrier
officer brought the charges, conducted the investigation and issued the notice
of dismissal. The allegation is, of course, that Carrier did not afford Claimant a fair and impartia
a number of claims and authority can be found on both sides of the question.
This Division has considered the matter in its recent Award No. 20027. In
that Award, the Board noted that "many prior rulings of this Board have found
no due process deficiency in the mere fact that a single official serves the
multiple functions which obtain in this case."
The use of a single official was not a violation of any specific
term of the Agreement. The transcript does not reveal any factor to support
a charge of unfairness. This Board has held that the use of a single official
is not, per se, a violation of Carrier's obligation to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. B
Award Number 20798 Page 2
Docket Number CL-20818
The Agreement provides for review by an Appeal Hearing officer.
Such a review was requested and was had. It has been characterized as
"parrotting" the original decision. More is required than a characterization to support a charge tha
hearing officer supports the decision cannot, alone, provide proof that
the review was not as provided by the Agreement.
Carrier acted after a fair and impartial investigation, conducted
as provided by the Agreement. Its action was based on substantial evidence
produced in the record. There are no grounds here upon which this Board
could sustain the claim.
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 not violated. -
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
· JP
`Y~
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of August 1975.
. I