NATIONAL RAILROAD AD,rusWNT BOARD
MIfD DIVISION Docket Number SG-23276
Martin F. Scheinmea, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Belt Railway Company of Chicago
STATU·'IENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signal men on the Belt Railway Company of Chicago:
On behalf of M. Pawlowicz, Assistant Signalman., appealing a ten day
suspension October 26-November 5,
1978,
for alleged continued absenteeism
and tardiness." (Carrier file: P/R Pawlowicz)
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, M. Pawlowicz, after investigation, was assessed
a ten (10) day actual suspension frog October 26 to
November 5,
1978,
for alleged continued absenteeism and tardiness. On November 2,
1978,
an appeal hearing was requested. Carrier denied this request by letter
dated November 10,
1978.
The Organization contends that Carrier violated the Agreement by _
failing to follow the provisions of the Agreement when` it failed to provide
Claimant with a Rule 52 hearing as requested by the General Chairman. In its
view, that failure requires that this discipline be set aside.
Rule 52(c) states:
"An employee may appeal from discipline imposed on
him if he or his duly accredited representative
does so is writing to the next higher official of
the company within ten (10) calendar days from the
date he
receives notice
of the imposition of such
discipline, and if so appealed hearing shall be
given within ten (10) calendar days of the date
of the appeal. When an appeal from discipline is
made to the next higher official this appeal shall
act as a stay of application of discipline is all
cases except where the discipline has been dismissal. A decision will be rendered within ten (10)
calendar days after the completion of hearing."
The language of Rule 52(c) is clear and unambiguous. Its import is unmistakable.
It provides for as appeal hearing if requested by the employe or his representative
within ten (10) calendar days from the date he receives the notice of the imposition
of discipline. Rule 52(c) further provides that the hearing be held within tea (i0)
days of the request end that the request will act as a stay of discipline in all
cases except dismissal.
Award Number 23308 Page 2
Docket Number SG-23276
Nothing in the language of Rule 52(c) allows Carrier the discretion
of whether it wishes to provide such a hearing.
Carrier contended that since the suspension had already started,
no practical purposes could have been served by holding the hearings. This
contention must be rejected. Stated simply, the interpretation suggested by
Carrier is incorrect.
In any case, the fact remains that Rule 52(c) requires an appeal
hearing to be granted with no exception if requested within the prescribed time
limits, Mere, the appeal hearing was properly requested within `,he prescribed
time limits. Nevertheless, Carrier failed to provide the required hearing.
When it failed to do so, terrier violated the Agreement. Carrier cannot be
excused for its failure to schedule the appeal hearing. Rule 52(c) guarantees
the right of an appeal. For this reason, the discipline must be set aside.
See Awards 15006, 16030, 1&09L and 19606.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boari, upon the whole
record and all the evidence., finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier sad the Employes involved is this diapers
are respectively Carrier and Employee 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; sad.
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST= BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
a4l,
Dated 8t Chicago., Illinois, this 29th day of May 1981.
~:/
w , .
..