NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MEW-23011
Rodney E_ Dennis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Maintenance of Way Agreement, especially
but not limited to Rule 6 - Discipline and Grievances, when on May 12, 1977,
Mr. James Cole, Sammie Lee Garner and Mr. Roosevelt Colvin were dismissed
from service and denied a hearing (System File MEW-78-13-CB).
(2) Laborers Cole, Garner and Colvin re now reinstated with pay
for all time lost and with seniority, vacation and other rights unimpaired.
This charge shall also be stricken from their records."
OPINION OF BOARD: There are three claimants in this case. Two were dis
charged by Carrier on May 10, 1977, and one on May 12,
1977. All discharges arose from the same incident. Claimants were extra
gang laborers assigned to Carrier's track Gang 11. They were billeted in
company trailers in Jonesboro, Arkansas. On or about May 10, 1977, claimants
were arrested and confined to Craighead County Jail on a rape charge.
It was alleged by two women that claimants raped them in one of the company
trailers. When claimants were confined in jail, Carrier dismissed them
from service for violation of Rule M801 of "Riles and Regulations for
Maintenance of Way and Structures" and General Rule "N" of the Uniform Code
of Operating Rules. (Both rules refer to conduct of employes and their
obligation to act in a proper and courteous manner at all times.)
The Organization argues that claimants were dismissed from service
without the advantage of a hearing, which is required by Bile 6 of the
controlling agreement. It especially argues this point in light of the
fact that all charges against claimants were eventually dropped in civil
court.
This Board is of the opinion, however, that Carrier did not
violate this rile. Under the circumstances, Carrier had ample reason to
believe that claimants were involved with the two female victims. Claimants
were charged with a Class A felony by civil authorities. Carrier discharged
claimants based on its knowledge of the event when their arrest took place.
Claimants did not request a hearing into their discharge until after the
charges were dropped by the civil authorities. Article 6-1 requires that
an employe who feels unjustly treated to request a hearing within _ten days
from the date the discipline was administered. Claimants failed, by a
considerable period of time, to meet this deadline.
Award Number 22879 Page 2
Docket Number MW-23011
The Organization argues that since claimants were cleared of all
charges, they were innocent and falsely accused. This argument cannot
prevail. Claimants were charged with a Class A felony. The charges were
subsequently dropped by the district attorney. There could be many reasons
why the authorities decided not to continue the prosecution. The failure
to prosecute, however, is not necessarily an indication that claimants
would not have been found guilty, if tried. It is well accepted in all
arbitral forums that arbitrators, hearing officers, and referees (in the
case of the Railway Adjustment Board) are not bound by decisions rendered
by civil courts when discipline has been imposed under the collective
bargaining agreement. Results in one forum need not be disnositive in the
other forum, regardless of the outcome.
It is the opinion of the Board that carrier had justification for
its actions and that it did not act in an arbitr^ry, capricious, or
discriminatory manner. It did not violate the collective bargaining
agreement by not granting claimants a hearing under role 6.1 of the
agreement.
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 Boards, 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:
Ex utive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of June 1980.