NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Nmber TD-23274
(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT O' CLAIM: "Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association
that Mr. M. F. Sssert (hereinafter referred to an
"the Claimant") should be reinstated as a train dispatcher for the Chicago
and North Western Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as
"the Carrier") and that the Carrier's adamant refusal to reinstate the
Claimant as a train dispatcher is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable
and an abuse of managerial discretion. The reinstatement of the Claimant
without compensation is sought as the result of an agreement or under
standing whereby the Claimant was finally returned to service as a clerk
with the right to appeal his disqualification as a train dispatcher not
seeking any compensatory features."
OPINION CIF BOARD: The claimant herein was formerly employed as a train
dispatcher on Carrier's Iowa Division. Following a formal
investigation conducted on February 2,
1979,
on the charge:
"Your responsibility for not properly performing
your duties and following proper train dispatching
procedures involving Extra
4419
East and Extra
6855
West on the Boone Subdivision during your tour of
duty on January 27,
1979,
while you were employed
as Dispatcher on Job 023 on that date."
Claimant was dismissed from service on February
6, 1979.
During wing
of the dispute on the property, the parties agreed that claimant would be restored to his former sen
6, 1979,
with the understanding that claimant or his representatives reserved the right to appeal
the issue of claimsat's disqualification an a train dispatcher without
compensation.
The Organization filed its notice of intention to submit the
disqualification issue to this Board on January
9, 1980,
and filed its submission on February
7, 1980.
The Carrier's submission was received on
March
17, 1980.
In its rebuttal submission, the organization called attention
that the Carrier's submission was not signed an required by that part of
Circular No. 1 of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, issued October 10,
1934,
which provides:
Award Nuaber 23170 Page 2
Docket Amber TD-23274
"SLGNATIHM: All
submissions must be signed
j(- t
by the parties submitting the same."
The organization insists that the Carrier's submission not be
considered by the Hoard as it does not meet the requirmsats of Circular
No. 1. The Organization representative has also called attention of
the Referee to the many awards issued by the Board dismissing c1aias of
employee where it was shown that the prowisioas of Circular No. 1 were
not complied with, and. insists that the Board cannot establish a double
standard concerning the application of Circular 3o. 1.
The submission of the Carrier bears no signature. Black's
Isv Dictionary defines signature:
"SIGNATURE: The act of putting down a'mn's
name at the end of an instrument to attest its
validity, the name thus written. A 'signature'
may be written by hand, printed, stamped, typewritter.s engraved, photographed, or cut from one
instrument and attached to another., and a signature lithographed on an instrument by a party
is sufficient for the purpose of signing it; it
being immaterial with what kind of instrument a
signature is made. Smith v Greenrille County,
188 S.C. 349, 199 S.E.
416,
4199 Marloopa
county v. Osborn, 6o Aria. 29op 136 P .2d 27o,
274. And whatever mark, symbol, or device one
my choose to employ as representative of
himself is sufficient. Griffith v.Bomwitzj,
73 Neb. 622, 103 H.
x.
327,
339·
See Sign."
The Carrier's submission fails to meet the signature requirewant.
This Botrd is always reluctant to decide disputes m technicalities, HareveT,provisions of Circular N
Hoard oannct establish a double standard concerning its application.
Based upon tire record as it e:d.sts, the claim will be sastainadD-
Award Number 23170 gage 3
Docket Number TD-23274
FIHDnR38: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boards, upon the whols
record and all the evidences finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing,,
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute
are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railvay
IAbor Acts as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the carrier did not comply with the requirements of
Circular No. 1.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:'
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago., Illinois., this 18th day of February 1981.