Award Number 21320,
Rocket Number CL-2I276
John h. Dorsey, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO l1IS : (
{Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood, GL7869, that:
1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement, and in particular
Rule 18(c), when it required Mr. J'* R. Trout, Jr., to attend an investiga-
tion an February 7, 1974., and then failed and refused to compensate him at j
the appropriate rate of pay (Carrier's file 380-3177
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. J. R, Trout,
Jr., $42.23 for February 7, 1974, which amount represents the appropriate
rate of pay of his regular assignment of Customer Service Clerk No. 020.
OPINION OF BOARD: On January 24, 1974, Carrier served upon Claimant the
following notice requiring him to appear as a crargefl
party at a formal investigation. The notice in pertinent part reads:
Report to Trairn.ster's Office, Room S, 1000 W, 4th, North
Little Rock, Ark., 1:30 P.M. Tuesday, January 29, 1974, for
formal investigation, to develop the facts and place responsibility, if any, for your alleged failure to secure disposition on car TP 6I3883, carload steel, set out by Train 741 at
Kensett, January 17, 2974, account hot box, and listing this
car for movement Kensett to North Little Rack no-bill.
The investigation was postponed at the request of Claimants Representative. It was re-set fox February 7, 1974, and was held on that date which
was a work day of Claimant's regular assignment.
On March 4, 1974, Carrier found Claimant guilty as charged and
dismissed Claimant from service. He was later reinstated an a leniency
basis..
i
On April 4, 1974, Claimant filed the instant claim for a day's
pay for his attendance at the hearing an February 7, 1974, and cited Rule
18(c) as supporting the claim. That provision of the Agreement reads:
Employes called by Carrier to attend investigation will be
compensated at the appropriate rate of pay.
Award Number 21320
Docket Number CL-21276
Page 2
The issue is whether an employe required to attend a discipline
investigation in which. he is a party charged and subsequently found guilty
is contractually entitled to be paid for day(s)-of attendance at the hearing.
In the absence of a specific provision in an agreement that a
charged party shall be paid four attendance at a discipline investigation
hearing it is the practice in the railroad industry that the employe is not
contractually entitled to pay for time in attendance at the hearing. The
confronting Agreement contains no such specific provision; and further, the
record before the Board contains no evidence of probative value that on the
property here involved payment to a charged party has been historically and
customarily paid. .
in the industry, provisions of agreement such as Rule 18(c) have
generally been held to apply to non-charged employes that are required to
attend a discipline investigation hearing. to testify as witnesses.
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 Carrier
did
not violate the Agreement
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
November 1976.
