NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-25128
Thomas F. Carey, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: °Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The disciplinary demotion of Foreman James Revely, Jr. and the
thirty (30) days of suspension imposed upon him was excessive and unwarranted
(System File C-D-1232-A-B-C-D/MG-3382-3-4-5).
(2) Two (2) of the investigations held on November 6, 1981 were
not held as required by Rule 21(a)(1).
(3) For the reasons set forth in either or both (1) and (2) above,
the claimant shall be reinstated as a foreman with seniority as such unimpaired
and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, Mr. J. Revely, Jr. was employed by The
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, for eleven years. He
was Production Gang Foreman assigned to Tie Force Unit 1263 when the incidents
involved here occurred.
As part of the supervisory duties of Production Gang Foreman of
force 1263, Mr. Revely was required to complete and submit timesheets for the
men working under his jurisdiction. The actual number of hours worked by
each member of the force were to be accurately reflected on the timesheets.
To ensure that timesheets can be picked up, approved by the Supervisors
and forwarded to Baltimore, Maryland in a timely manner, it is practice to
have the various foremen prepare and submit weekly time sheets on Thursdays.
This practice facilitated the time issuance of pay checks. These timesheets
represent one full week of work, and it must be assumed that the employes
will work a full day Friday unless otherwise notified.
On October 26, 1981, the Claimant received four (4) individual
notices to appear for four (4) separate investigations at Richmond, Virginia,
charging him with falsifying timesheets'of Force 1263. The investigation
held that:
(1) On October 16, 1981, Mr. Revely submitted a signed timesheet
for Mr. John Morning, a member of the Force, showing that he
had worked 8 hours when, in fact he had not worked at all on
this date.
(2) On October 16, 1981, Mr. Revely's Force did not work a full
8 hours (they were released at 1:30 p.m.) even though their
timesheets indicated that each man had worked and was to be
paid for 8 hours.
Award Number 25005 Page 2
Locket Number MW-25128
(3) On October 22, 1981, Mr. Revely was granted time off duty,
yet his timesheet covering this date indicated he worked 8
hours straight-time and 1 hour overtime.
(4) On October 23, 1981, Mr. Revely released his men from duty at
approximately 10:30 a.m., but the timesheets indicated that each
man had worked a full 8-hour day.
There is sufficient grounds in record to deny claim, not the least
of which are the several admissions against interest of the Claimant himself.
In Award 13179 (Dorsey) we said:
"In discipline cases, the board sits as an appellate forum. As
such, our function is confined to determining whether: (1) Claimant
was afforded a fair and impartial hearing; (2) the finding of
guilty as charged is supported by the substantial evidence; and (3)
the discipline imposed is reasonable."
After a careful review of the transcripts of the investigation, we
are unable to sustain Petitioner's objection that the hearing was not fair
and not impartial. Claimant was, after all, afforded every opportunity to
present his version of the facts, vigorously represented by the Organization,
and allotted ample time to cross-examine any adverse witness. Furthermore,
the hearing was fairly and properly conducted in accordance with the Rules
and without any denial of Claimant's rights of due process.
The principle has been well established that we will not disturb
Carrier's decision on guilt or the discipline imposed where it is supported
by substantial probative evidence and carrier has not acted arbitrarily,
unreasonably, or contrary to due process, Third Division Award 20918.
It is our opinion that the record discloses sufficient competent
and relevant evidence to support the charges against the Claimant and that
the Carrier was justified in so holding.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, 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 Car_ier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Hoard has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
Award Number 25005 Page 3
Locket Number MW-25128
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Nancy J er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September 1984.