NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-23836
Carlton R. Sickles, Referee
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE :
~NOrfolk and Western Railway Company (Forma Virginian Railway Co.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The suspension of sixteen
(16)
days imposed upon Trackman
James Jordon was without dust and sufficient cause, based upon unproven and
dieprwen charges and in violation of the Agreement (System
File
V-D-812/!Ed-LY
79-17)·
(2) Trackman James Jordon shall be compensated for all wage loss
suffered; he shall be reimbursed for mileage (400 miles @15¢ per mile) and meal
expense incurred and be compensated for travel time for traveling between his
headquarters and Crewe, Virginia."
OPINION OF
BOARD: Thin dispute involves the former Virginian portion of the
Norfolk and Western Railway Company. Specifically, the
question at issue is the application of Rule No. 24 - Discipline and Grievances.
Claimant, Trackman James Jordon, was held out of service on July 10,
1979.
A charge was made and an investigatory hearing was held. Claimant was
subsequently assessed discipline of sixteen
(16)
days suspension and returned
to service on August 2,
1979.
By letter dated August
15, 1979,
the General Chairman, on behalf of
Claimant Jordon appealed the suspension and requested a hearing "... in
accordance with Rule 24(d) of the former Virginian Agreement." At that same
time, the General chairman wrote:
"We hereby request that Mr. Jordon be paid for the sixteen
(16) days actual suspension, plus four hundred miles, meal
allowances at the prevailing rate, and travel allowance to
sad from Mr. Wilkinson's office."
Rule 24(d) of the applicable Rules Agreement reads as follows;
"(d) Appeal: An employs dissatisfied with the decision
rendered as a result of the hearing, will be given ten
(10) days in which to file written notice with the neat
higher official, with a copy to the official whose decision is appealed, and will be grunted,
(20) days, a hearing before the official to whom notice
is given. If the employs desires further appeal, the
right will be granted in succession up to the highest
official designated to handle such cases, if notice of
Award Number 2391.1 page 2
Docket Number Zb1-23836
appeal is given as above.
AM
a will be granted and
decisions rendered within nable time after notice
is filed. The right of the employs to be represented by
one or more of the duly accredited representatives of his
craft or class in such appeals is recognized." (Under
score ours for emphasis).
Claimant was not granted as appeal hearing. Rather, by letter dated
September 13, 1979, the Carrier officer to whom the original appeal sad claim
for compensation was addressed denied the appeal and claim for compeasatim.
The carrier has argued that Rule 24 of the Agreement was revised in
May, 1955, to incorporate in paragraph (h) thereof the Claims and Grievances
provisions of Article 0 of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement and that the
time limits provisions therein should apply in this instant matter.
This Board has consistently held that the time limits which are set
out in negotiated Rules Agreements will be strictly complied with. While this
map appear to cause some injustices in same instances, it has been consistently
applied against both sides.
In the instant dispute, the language of Rule 24(d) is clear and precise.
It addresses itself specifically to employee dissatisfied with a disciplinary
decision; it clearly sayca·that an appeal therefrom must be initiated iawriting
within ten (10) days; and it further demands that a hearing thereon will be
anted within twenty (20~ days. We do not view this as being in conflict with
the All claims and grievances" provisions found in Rule 24(h). Because the
applicable provisions of Rule 24(d) were not complied with in this case, the
appeal from the suspension of sixteen (16) days must be sustained without reaching
the merits of the suspension.
However, the claim for reimbursement of mileage, meals and travel
allowances as initiated in the General Chairman's letter of August 15, 1979,
was timely denied under the expressed provisions of Rule 24(h). Inasmuch as
Rule 24(e) specifically provides the remedy to employee who are exonerated
of a charge in a disciplinary proceeding, that portion of part (2) of the
Statement of Claim in this dispute is denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole retard
sad all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute 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; and
Award Number
2397.7
Docket Number
Pdd-23836
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained is accordance with the Opinion.
Page
3
NATICNAI. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: dating Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Rosemarie Breach - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this
8th
day of June
1982·