NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
yAward Number 24530
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-24415
I,
Paul C. Carter, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(Central of Georgia Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-9535) that:
Carrier violated the Agreement at Cordon, Georgia, when on January
16, 1980, it dismissed Claimant Hobby Hall, III, from the service of the
Carrier, account of his alleged failure to perform his duties as Agent properly.
For this violation,, the Carrier shall now be required to rescind
its prior imposed discipline and return Claimant Hall to the service of the
Carrier, with all the rights and benefits to which he is entitled, and with
pay for all time lost, beginning January 16, 1980.
OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant had a seniority date of June 6, 1972, on
Carrier°s Savannah District of the Coastal Division.
At the time of the occurrence giving rise to the claim herein, he was an
extra agent-operator on the seniority district mentioned, and was filling
the vacancy of agent, Cordon, Georgia.
On January 9, 1980, Claimant was instructed to attend a formal
investigation at 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 15, 1980, on the charges:
'Zn this investigation you will be charged with your failure to
properly process ARCO coal train waybill No. 24420 dated 11-20-79
for freight charges due and for failing to charge detention due
for same train which arrived Harllee, Ga., November 22, 1979, at
2:45 a.m., and unloaded last car at 11:45 a.m., for a total of 5
hours detention. This waybill was found by Agent at Cordon, Ga.,
in desk drawer on January 1, 1980.
Additionally, in this investigation you will be charged with your
failure to properly list, date and fill out demurrage records for
flat cars with containers furnished Freeport Kaolin Company at
Cordon, Ga., during the month of December, 1979, after thorough
and explicit instructions had been given you on the proper method
and procedure to follow in the listing and assessing of charges
for this type car on November 8 and 9, 1979, by P. M. Crawford,
Senior Coordinator, Stations, and Terminals, and J. H. Campbell,
Trainmaster."
Award Number 24530 Page 2
Docket Number CL-24415
° The investigation was conducted as scheduled and a copy of transcript
has been made a part of the record. The Claimant was present throughout the
investigation and was represented. A review of the transcript shows that the
investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial
manner. None
of Claimant's
substantive procedural rights was violated. Following the investigation, Claimant
was notified by letter dated January 22, 1980, of his dismissal from the service.
The dismissal letter was sent certified mail - return receipt requested.
In the handling of the dispute on the property and in its submission to this
Board, the Organization contends that the decision was not rendered within the
seven-day time limit of Rule C-1-(b), reading:
"A decision will be rendered within seven days after completion of
investigation and hearing."
In the on-property handling, the Local Chairman counted January 15 as
the first day and contended that January 22 was the eighth day. It is well
settled that in computing days under rules such as Rule C-1-(b), the first day
is excluded and the last day included. Therefore, seven days from January 15
would be January 22. The carrier advised the Local Chairman that the dismissal
letter was written and dated January 22, 1980, and placed in the U. S. Mail the
same date. This seems to be borne out by Employes' Exhibit No. 3, even though
the postal workers may have later postmarked the letter January 23, 1980. Rule
C-1-(b) does not require that the employe actually receive the notice of discipline
within.geven days, but that such decision be "rendered· within seven days. See
Third Division Award No. 21526, and awards cited therein, as well as Third Division
Awards Nos. 13219 and 17588, the latter citing many other awards. We find and
hold that the seven-day provision of Rule C-1-(b) was complied with by the Carrier.
We find no proper basis for any contention that the conducting officer
badgered the Claimant during the course of the hearing. Further, no such contention
was made by Claimant or his representative during the course of the investigation.
It is well settled that if exceptions are to be taken to the
manner in
which
an
investigation is conducted, such exceptions must be taken during the course of
the investigation; otherwise, they are deemed waived.
Carrier's Operating Rule 1151 reads:
"Agents are in charge of the Railway's interests at their stations; of
its buildings, sidings, other tracks and grounds within the station
limits; of the station appliances; equipment; of its accounts and
records; of its material and supplies; of all cars at the station
except intrains; of the receipt, care, forwarding and delivery of
baggage and freight; of the sale of tickets; of the collection of
station revenues; of the remittance or deposit of money; of such
disbursements thereof as may be properly authorized; of all station
employees and of other employees while at the station, so far as it
relates to their conduct or to the station work.
Award Number 24530 Page 3
Docket Number CL-24415
Agents will also have charge of such other matters as may arise in
connection with the station management or may be assigned to them by
proper authority.
Agents must report to Superintendent any matters affecting the
interests of the Railway."
Carrier's Operating Rule 1175 reads:
·Agents must make prescribed reports as required by proper authority."
Upon review, we find substantial evidence in the investigation to
support the charges against the Claimant. While there were some conflicts in
the evidence adduced, it is not the function of this Board to weigh evidence,
attempt to resolve the conflicts therein, or to pass upon the credibility of
witnesses. Such functions are reserved to the Carrier. There was substantial
evidence that Claimant did fail to properly perform his duties while filling the
agent's position at Gordon, Ga. His actions, coupled with his prior record,
which was far from satisfactory, and which was referred to in the handling on
the property (Carrier's Exhibit "L·) justified the discipline imposed and there
is no proper basis for this Board to interfere.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties
to this dispute the notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employes 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 not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
ev~zoeo~
Nancy J.,07ir - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of October, 1983.