(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline sad Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express sad Station Employee PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad OmquLay


1. Carrier acted is as arbitrary and capricious maaaer when it suspended Me. Sally Schumacher from service for a period of ten (10) days commencing on February 3, 1980;

 2. Carrier shall now compensate Ma. Schumacher for all time lost as a result of this suspension from service and shall clear her retard of the charge placed against her.

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was disciplined by a five-day suspension as the
 fifth offense in a progressive discipline procedure es
 tablished by the Carrier. The claimant objects to the progressive discipline
 procedure. The identical issue was raised in an action involving this Carrier
 sad Organization sad it was recently decided in Award 23405 that the procedure
 was proper. We flail nothing unusual or shocking about that decision and will
 uphold it in this award.

        In Award 23405 the Board felt as follows:


        "The progressive discipline procedure is the system on this property. Claimant had knowledge of it. It is not~aa unreasonable system. Indeed, consideration of the Claimant's peat record in assessing discipline is good industrial practice. Here, such progressive discipline has been systematized. Moreover, the Organization has acquiesced in its use."


        "Under the progressive discipline procedures this is Claimant's third offense. As such, he is subject to e three (3) day suspension. Since Claimant was treated in accordance with this procedure, we see no reason to overturn the discipline imposed."

                      Award Number 23930 Page 2

                _ Docket Number CL-23942


In addition, the claimant has raised the issues that she was not afforded s fair and impart?=i hearing and that the hearing officer had clearly prejudged the case and also that the Carrier had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the charge that was placed against the claimant. We have reviewed the entire retard before us and do not agree that the claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial hearing or that the Carrier failed to prove the charge placed against the claimant.

        F17MnVGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole retard and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier affil the Employee involved is 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

        That the Agreement was violated.


                      A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD AnTt1SWVT HOARD

                              By Order of Thud Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By '
      semasie Breach - Administrative Assistan


Dated at Chicago,, Illinois, this 30th day of June 1982.

                                                \A..

                                          ~;~cn v[~)

                                                  ~.


                                            nr ·^`~7

                                          pL

                                            ~l,,_


                                                    i

                                        ChC wlu`, i


                                        ·.~ ~70 GiIICe'G` ~: