NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-21876
George S. Roukis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The dismissal of Monroe Alexander on July 16, 1975 was
without just and sufficient cause (System File B-1363-1/Time Claims:
General: Alexander, Monroe).
(2) The Carrier shall restore Monroe Alexander to service
with pay and record adjustment as set forth in Agreement Rule 91(b) (6).
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was dismissed from service by Carrier's
Roadmaster on July 16, 1975. Investigation was
requested by the General Chairman of the Organization as provided for in
Rule 91 of the applicable Agreement, and hearing was scheduled for
August 5, 1975. The General Chairman was present at the hearing
Claimant appeared, accompanied by Mr. Reubin Davis, whom he described as
a personal friend who would be his personal representative. Claimant
was advised that it would not be permissible for Mr. Davis to represent
him, at which time Davis instructed the claimant to leave the
investigation. The General Chairman advised claimant to remain at the
investigation, but he elected to leave as suggested by Mr. Davis.
Rule 91(b)3 of the applicable Agreement reads:
"The employee may be represented by duly accredited
representative of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employees; and shall have the right to have present,
without cost to the Carrier, such witnesses as he may
desire."
Claimant was entitled to representation at the investigation
as provided for in the Agreement. See Broady vs Illinois Central,
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, decided July 25, 1951.
Also, Second Division Awards 6381 and 6963. Following claimant's
departure the investigation was conducted in his absence, but with the
General Chairman present. On August 8, 1975, claimant was notified that
as a result of the hearing conducted on August 5, 1975, his dismissal from
service was affirmed.
Award Number 21626
Docket Number MW-21876
Page 2
On August 25, 1975, the General Chairman requested that
another hearing or investigation be held to permit the claimant to
testify in his own behalf. The Carrier agreed that the investigation
would be re-opened at 1:00 P.M., October 3, 1975, to permit claimant
to testify. Proper notice was sent to claimant's address by certified
mail and return receipt received by Carrier, but Claimant did not appear
at the re-opened investigation.
Claimant's failure to participate in the investigation of
August 5, 1975, and the re-opened investigation of October 3, 1975, was
at his peril. See Award 13127 and Second Division Award 6499.
There were no procedural errors in the record before the
Board. There was substantial evidence to warrant claimant's dismissal.
The claim will, therefore, be 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 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
AUG 2 4 1977
v
Claim denied. ~ J
SEF
NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th
day of July 1977.