NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number TD-22833
(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company
( (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association
that:
(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation company (hereinafter
referred to as "the Carrier"), violated the Agreement in effect between
the parties, Article 8 thereof in particular, by its action in assessing
discipline in the form of dismissal against Claimant R. J. Brodie as a
result of hearing held February 23, 1977. Said discipline is arbitrary,
harsh, unwarranted, and an abuse of managerial discretion.
(b) Carrier shall now reinstate Claimant R. J. Brodie with
seniority, and all other rights unimpaired, clear Claimant's employment
record of the charges which provided the basis for said action, and to
compensate Claimant for wage lose due to Carrier's action.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record shows that claimant entered Carrier's
service as a Train Order Operator on January 17, 1967.
He qualified as a train dispatcher on September 17, 1970. On February 18,
1977, claimant was assigned and working as Train Dispatcher 8:00 A. M. to
4:00 P. M. On February 17, 1977, he was cited for formal hearing:
"You are hereby notified to
§J
present in the office of
Chief Train Dispatcher, Roseville, California, at 9:00 AM,
Wednesday, February 23rd, 1977 for formal hearing in
connection with your alleged failure to provide train
orders which were in effect to Work Extra 3810 at Woodland,
Tuesday, February 15, 1977, working between Woodlaaorand
Delavan, specifically Train Orders 1247 and 1266, which
were in effect between these stations, which may involve
violation of first paragraph of Rule 204 reading:
'Train orders must be addressed to those who are to
execute them, naming the place at which each is to
receive his copy. Those for a train must be addressed
to the conductor, engineer, and pilot if any. A copy
for each employe addressed must be supplied by the
operator.'
Award Number 22825 Page 2
Docket Number TD-22833
"and allegedly 'mailing' a restricting train order to Work
Extra 3810 at Yolo, care of employe, specifically Form Y
Train Order 1266 on February 15, 1977, while serving as
a train dispatcher on the Mountain District on the
Sacramento Division, for which occurrence you are hereby
charged with the responsibility which may involve violation
of first paragraph of Rule 217 reading;
'A train order to be delivered to a train at a
station other than a train-order office, or at
a train-order office which is closed, must be
addressed to "C&E AT CARE OF "
or "C&E ,BETWEEN CARE OF _"
'
and second paragraph Rule 217 reading
'Orders must not be sent in this manner restricting
superiority or movement of a train, except when
combined with train order Forms G, H, Examples (1),
(2), (3), or (4), or in connection with Form T.'
You are entitled to representation and witnesses in accordance with the agreement covering train
The hearing was conducted as scheduled and claimant was dismissed
from service March 2, 1977. A copy of the transcript of the hearing has
been made a part of the record.
From our review of the transcript of the hearing, we find that
none of claimant's substantive procedural rights was violated. There was
substantial evidence adduced at the investigation, including claimant's
own statement, to support a violation of the rules.
The Carrier makes reference to claimant's prior record. However,
the record submitted to the Board shows one prior disciplinary suspension
in 1973.
Based upon the record properly before us, and the responsibility
that a train dispatcher bears for the proper handling of train orders,
the Board concludes that severe discipline was warranted. However, the
time that claimant has been out of service should serve as sufficient
discipline. we will award that claimant be restored to service with
seniority and other rights unimpaired, but without any compensation for
time lost while out of the service. The claimant should understand,
however, that the purpose of this Award is to give him "one last chance"
Award Number 22825 Page 3
Docket Number TD-22833
to become and remain a responsible employe, and that further major infractions by him will resul
In reaching our decision in this case the Board has not
considered Carrier's Exhibit "I", as it is well settled in discipline
cases that the parties to the dispute and the Board itself are restricted
to the testimony adduced at the investigation concerning the charge or
charges against an employe, and neither side is free to supplement that
record subsequent to the hearing or investigation.
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 imposed was excessive.
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
T
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April 1980.