aATIDHAL RAILROAD ADJT)STKEXT BOARD
orw DIVISION Docket Humber CL-2418
Y171iaa G. Chples., Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers~ Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Belt Railway Company of Chicago
STAB CF
CLAIX:~Claia of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood
(GIr·9552) that
1. Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when,
following an investigation on February
5,, 1981p
it suspended Clerk
Patricia Ann Tsudean, service for a period of sixty (60) days
commencing on February 9a 1981.:
2. Carrier sha71 now compensate Ms. 2rudean for all time
lost.. including anyy potential overtime, as a result of this suspension
Srom service and shall clear
her retard
of the charge placed against her.
Opmaoa cr km-
Vadw date of
January
23, 1981,
the supervisor of car
Operations sent a letter to Claimant, an employe with a
service date of July 16,9 IMO directing her to report for an investigation:
.`...far the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining
your responsibility., if any., in conaaction with your alleged
failure as required by Company rules to report or identify
a personal injury which you. now allege took place on or
about August 1978 at 6900 South Central Avenue, Chicago,.
113~is., managements' first knowledge being January 22.,
1981 on receipt of a letter dated January 19., 1981 fro~n
'a named and designated law firs' which you have retained
in a
claim
for damages against the Carrier...'
An investigation was held and Claimant suspended from actual service
for 60 days a period beginning February
9
cn.-. ending April 10,
1981.
The
discipline was appealed through the procedures for handling such disputes to
this Board. The Claimant maintained the discipline was without justification.
The facts are that from August 6 through September 1,
1978.,
Claimant
was off work due to illness. There was trouble diagnosing her illness which was
ultimately diagnosed as ocular histoplasmosis. Before Claimant returned to work
she was
examined
by the Carrier physician on August 31..
1978.
The report was not
made a part of the record. The Claimant stated at the hearing that she advised
her immediate supervisor of her condition. There was no contrary evidence in
the record.
- Award Iniber 24.407 Page 2
Docket fiaber M,24425
Mae Carrier's
case is
based an its contention
that Claimant
failed
to
report her condition as work related and she wilfully concealed this from the Carrier.
It
is well established in
this
Division
that in
discipline cases
the
OLrtier has
the
bur-den of proof.
The
record in
this case fails to
establish
any evidenoe of probative value which sustains Onrrier's burden.
PI®I=: The Third Division of the Adjustseat Board, upon the whole record
and ail the evidence, finds and holds:
Tact the
parties waived oral heating;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in
this
dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes vithia
the weaning
of
the
Railway Labor
Act, as spino*e3
Jane 21, 19341
. That tble Division of the Adjustmcat Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved hr..-min; and
Mist the Ag;
enact was violated.
A H A R D
Cl.ais surtaiae&.
FATIOM RAILROAD ADJDSMRT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: Acting Executive Se=etnry
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
1'~ -` . .^is_ ~' ' l
'~ ! 'L
Rosemarie Bras - Administrative
Assistant
Dated at micxgo,
III
is., thin 15th day of
Jove 1983.
\J ._
(, i