NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-25112
Paul C. Carter, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) Carrier unjustly dismissed from the service Mr. H. Arterberrie,
Machine Operator-Yard Clerk, Durand, Mlcnzgan, as result of
investigation held on
May 3, 1982,
in
which the transcript failed to support the decision of the Carrier.
in the discharge of Mr. Arterberrie in the caption of the investigation.
(2) The carrier shall now be required to reinstate Mr. Arterberrie with
all rights unimpaired with compensation for any wage losses incurred from May 13,
1982.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed as a Machine Operator-Yard Clerk at
Durand, Michigan, with a seniority date of May 15, 1976. On
March 19, 1982, he was notified to attend formal investigation on the charge:
"*** to determine your responsibility for alleged violation
of:
1. GT General Rules 9, 14, and 20 of the GT General
Rules for Employees Not Otherwise Subject to the
Rules for Conducting Transportation by displaying an
uncooperative attitude toward Yardmaster Welch and
Engineer Shepard and exhibiting abusive actions
toward Yardmaster Welch.
2. GT General Rule 2 of the GT General Rules for
Employees Not Otherwise Subject to the Rules for
Conducting Transportation resulting in alleged
personal injury to yourself.
3. GT Safety Rules Form SRC-1 'A' of the notice and 2002
by driving GT vehicle #085-B at excessive speeds and
in a careless manner through a residential neighborhood
and on company property while transporting Train 410's
crew to their train.
4. GT Safety Rules Form SRC-1, 1909 and 1911 by deliber-
ately blocking the doorway so Yardmaster Welch could
not leave the Yardmaster's office.
Award Number 24913 Page 2
Docket Number CL-25112
"between approximately 1800 and 1830 on Saturday, March 27,
1982, while working your 1500-2300 Machine Operator-Yard
Clerk assignment at Durand, Michigan."
GT General Rules 9, 14, and 20 read:
"9. The railroad and railroad jobs survive by selling
service. Prompt, courteous and efficient service to
customers, the public and fellow employees is the
primary function of each employee. Service also
includes providing safe, prompt and friendly transportation."
"14. While on duty, employees must devote themselves
exclusively to the company's service, render every
assistance they can in carrying out the Company Rules
and Instructions, and report to a Supervisor any
violation thereof."
"20. Faithful adherence to these rules in the performance
of our jobs is in the best interest of each employee
and in turn of his or her fellow employees. Working
professionally as a team with courtesy, safety and
service utmost in mind will do much to insure the
company's success and our own livelihood."
GT Safety Rule Form SRC-1 "A" -
"A. Safety is of the first importance in the discharge
of duty."
GT Safety Rule 2002 -
"2002. Personnel operating company vehicles must comply
with all governmental traffic laws and regulations."
GT Safety Rules, Form SRC-1, 1909 and 1911 -
"1909. Approach doors with caution and open slowly as
someone may be on the other side. Stand or walk
clear of doorways to avoid collisions with others."
"1911. Keep to the right in approaching corners and walk
slowly to avoid others coming from the other direction."
Award Number 24913 Page 3
Docket Number CL-25112
The investigation was scheduled for April 2, 1982, but was postponed to
May 3, 1982. A copy of the seventy-five page transcript has been made a part of
the record. Claimant was represented in the investigation by the Local Chairman
of the Organization, who, along with the Claimant, raised many of what may properly
be termed petty objections, none of which, or all of which, had any real significance,
except possibly to prolong the proceedings. On May 11, 1982, Claimant was notified
of his dismissal from service for charges 1, 3 and 4, as set out in the letter of
charges.
We have carefully reviewed the lengthy transcript of the investigation,
and find substantial evidence in support of the charges for which Claimant was
dismissed.
The yardmaster testified that he gave the Claimant the keys to GTW van
and told him it was time to go to the roundhouse, get the engine crew and take
them to their train; that Claimant told him that he was not transporting crews in
the van; that he asked Claimant four times if he was refusing to get the crew, and
each time the Claimant responded °I cannot hear you." The yardmaster's testimony
was verified by the testimony of a Patrolman.
The yardmaster also testified that Claimant blocked the doorway when he
(the yardmaster) attempted to enter the lunch room; that he asked Claimant to let
him by and Claimant responded: "I will move when I get good and ready." The
Patrolman again verified the testimony of the yardmaster. The Patrolman also
testified that Claimant used abusive language to the yardmaster.
The record shows that after talking to the Assistant Road Foreman of
Engines, Claimant agreed to transport the crew. The engineer, of the crew
transported, testified that he and the brakeman, also being transported, objected
to the speed that claimant was driving the van, and Claimant informed them "if we
didn't like it we could get out and walk." There was also testimony by the engineer
that Claimant drove in a reckless manner and exceeded the speed limit in a 25-mile
speed zone through a residential neighborhood. There were conflicts in the testimony
as between the Claimant and the crew members being transported. However, it is
well settled that this Board does not weigh evidence, attempt to resolve conflicts
therein, or pass upon the credibility of witnesses. Such functions are reserved
to the hearing officer. The Board may not reverse the Carrier's determination
merely because of conflicts in testimony.
Claimant's actions in the present case, coupled with his prior discipline
record, which was far from satisfactory, warranted the disciplinary action taken
by the Carrier. The claim will be denied.
Award Number 24913 Page 4
Docket Number CL-25112
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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 .r%'
y J. Dever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of July 1984.