TLkTIOTI?L RAILuCAD ADJUS=:T 3C.-.RD
THIIRD DliISIOTI DCc-t :umbe_
OL-_ _,
Joseph A. Sic,,es, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
( Express and Station Mnployes
PARTIES TO DISFL-ME:
(Port Ter^».ral Railroad Association
$y=.T:-'i°'_' f- CTADT: Claim of the System Co=n.7ittee of the Broth erncod
GL-8371",
that:
(1) The Association violated the current Clerks' Agreement
at Houston, Texas, when on December
5, 1975,
it arbitrarily and capriciously discharged Clerk D. ;d. -:organ from their service without just
and sufficient cause and denied ^l.u a fair and 1::-oart7.al hearinand
review.
(2)
The Port Terminal Railroad Association be reeu_red to
restore Clerk D. W. b_organ to their service with full seniority,
vacation and other employe rights restored unimaaired, pay him a day's
pay for December
5, 19?5,
and each subsequent work day thereafter that
he could have performed service for the Association..
(3)
The Port Terminal Railroad be required to clear the
service record of Clerk D. W. :=organ of this unproven charge aiid
discipline assessed.
C
T
request,
~7
P NICN OF BOARD: Pursuant to his
U
_aiinant was afforded an
investigation ccncernins is dismissal frcm service.
Thereafter, Carrier reconfirmed its original decision to dismiss the
7aployee based upon a violation of Rule
40:
"40.
Employes :mho are careless of t.^_a safety
ca
rf _ ~neriseiwes
or others, in subordin=e, dis ho nest,
i=oral,
quarrelsome,
o_ _ther:;ise vicious, :;ill be
subject to c:ismissal.
~r
The Claimant marked off -·r-_or to his schedule!: s'ar'i-time, advising that he was si
employee was incarcerated, having been arrested for possession of a
controlled dangerous substance.
Award Number
21934
Page 2
Docket Number CL-22015
Our review of the record shows that the Claimant was dishonest
when he advised that he was sick on the day in question. Thus, it only
remains for us to determine if Carrier's dismissal was excessive under
the circumstances. We conclude that it was not. The incident in
question appears to deal with a second narcotics charge, and, =e':icus_y,
the Employee had been reinstated on a leniency basis after he had been
dismissed.
Under all of the circumstances of record, we deny 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 i _ . '3
f
Claim denied.
-N
d
~~,,/
.~ J_ r
r
r.
NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJU BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
~· y ~~CL.
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
28th
day of Febn;ary
10;3.