NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22418
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago and North
Western Transportation Company:
(a) On June 17 and 21, 1977, the carrier violated the
current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly rule 60 (revised)
during the investigation of signal maintainer Mr. Chris Tousana,
and subsequent discipline assessed to him.
(b) Carrier now be required to reinstate Mr. Tousana to
his former signal maintainers position with all seniority and other
rights unimpaired, compensate him for all time lost, and clear his
personal record of the entire charge." ffarrier file: D-9-17-257
OPINION OF BOARD: On June 13, 1977, Carrier notified the Claimant
to report for investigation concerning an alleged
violation of Rule G. Subsequent to the investigation, Claimant was
dismissed from service.
Initially, the Claimant questions the sufficiency of the
notice in that the charge merely asserted a violation of "Rule G"
without further specifics as to the nature of the asserted violation
or the time, place, etc. Certainly, we will concede that the notice
was not ideal, and it should have been more specific in its terms.
At the sam time, under this record we are not able to state that
the Claimant was not notified "·..as to the nature thereof of
charges against him, if any..." as required by Rule 60. We reach
that conclusion because certainly an employe with over ten years
of experience in the industry is aware of the general contents of
"Rule G." Moreover, we note that he was held out of service on
June 11, 1977 - a short time prior to the notice and investigation -
and contrary to his assertions, he appeared to know the purpose of
the hearing, and the basis for the accusation against him.
Award Number 22396 Page 2
Docket Number SG-22418
Further, we feel that there is substantive evidence of
record to demonstrate that the Claimant was in violation of Rule G.
The Claimant's tour of duty, on the date in question, started at
11:00 p.m. But, at 11:22 p.m., he was asleep in a chair with his
head on the desk. While it is true that the Employe was not
charged with being asleep while on duty, it is equally true that
we may consider such evidence as it might tend to corroborate
other evidence which suggested that the Employe had imbibed in
alcoholic beverage prior to reporting to duty. The evidence
shows that the Claimant was not properly dressed for duty,
various noises and activity failed to awaken him, and there was
an aroma of alcohol associated with him. Claimant refused a
chemical test which was offered to him as a means of confirming
his protestations that he had had only two beers some 10 or 11
hours prior to the confrontation. In addition, there is evidence
of unsteady gait and slurred speech.
We have not discounted the evidence concerning the
Claimant's ability to "pick up coins" and to identify and calculate
their denominations. But, that evidence does not negate a finding
that an Employe used alcoholic beverages while subject to duty.
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:
4ia_
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of April 1979.