NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-22795
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Western Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The dismissal of B&B Foreman D. B. Ehorn was without just
and sufficient cause, on the basis of unproven charges and in violation of
the Agreement (Carrier's File Case No. 11316-1978-BMWE).
(2) The above charges be stricken from the claimant's record,
he be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he be
compensated for all wage loss suffered, all in conformance with the third
paragraph of Rule 20."
OPINION OF BOARD: On February 8, 1978, claimant, Foreman of Carrier's
B&B Gang 503, was notified:
"Arrange to attend, as principal, a formal investigation to be held in the Conference Room of th
Pacific Railroad, 250 Silver Street, Elko, Nevada, at
9:00 a. m., Monday, February 13, 1978, to determine facts
and place your responsibility in connection with your
alleged theft of gasoline from the Western Pacific
Railroad on or about December 20, 1977, February 1, 1978,
and other occasions extending from June 1977 to the present.
"Arrange to attend this investigation with proper
representative and/or witnesses if desired."
The investigation was postponed by agreement, and conducted on
February 27, 1978. Following the investigation, claimant was notified on
March 10, 1978, of his dismissal from service, A copy of the transcript
of the investigation has been made a part of the record.
The Organization contends that claimant was denied a fair and
impartial hearing because the conducting officer denied claimant's
representative the opportunity to question one of the witnesses, B&B Track
Inspector Huff. The Board has carefully examined this aspect of the
Award Number 22744 Page 2
Docket Number MW-22795
investigation. After witness Huff had stated that he did not have any
first-hand knowledge of the facts under investigation, the conducting
officer excused him as a witness. Claimant's representative protested
the ruling, and the conducting officer offered to reverse the ruling if
claimant's representative would indicate what pertinent facts the witness
might have concerning the matter under investigation. The claimant's
representative made no direct response. Later the claimant indicated
that he desired to question witness Huff because written statements
signed by some of the gang members had been delivered to Mr. Huff.
The conducting officer then renewed his original ruling as witness Huff
had previously stated that he had no first-hand knowledge of the matter.
While the actions of the conducting officer in this matter may not be
considered exemplary, under the facts indicated we do not consider his
actions sufficiently serious as to constitute reversible error or to
void the entire proceedings.
As to the merits of the case, there was substantial evidence
produced at the investigation to support the charge against claimant and
the Carrier's action in dismissing him from the service. We note,
however, that in handling the dispute on the property the Carrier, on
July 21, 1978, offered to restore claimant to service, without pay for
time out of service, subject to the following conditions:
(1) Mr. Ehorn (claimant) shall pass a return-to-service
physical examination.
(2) Upon his return to service Mr. Ehorn will be restricted
to the exercise of his seniority as a Carpenter;
restoration of his seniority as a Foreman will be
dependent upon his future performance.
The above offer was rejected by the Claimant.
Based upon the facts of record, the Board considers the offer
made by the Carrier to be fair and reasonable. We will award that the
offer, without pay for time lost, again be made to claimant by the Carrier,
with the stipulation that it may be accepted within sixty days from the
date of this Award. In all other respects the claim is denied.
Award Number 22744 Page 3
Docket Number M41-22795
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 discipline be modified as outlined in the Opinion.
A W A R D
Claim sustained to the extent indicated in Opinion and Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of February 1980,