NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Locket Number MW-25515
Paul C. Carter, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Seaboard System Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The dismissal of Machine Operator D. G. Fry for alleged failure
"to protect your assignment on April 7 and 8, 1982, and violation of Paragraph 5
of Rule 'G " was excessive and without reasonable cause (Carrier's File 12-27(834) J2J.
(2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other
rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed as a machine operator by the Carrier
on that portion of the Railroad formerly known as the Monon,
and was headquartered at LaFayette, Indiana.
During the evening of April 6, 1982, Claimant, along with a friend,
visited a local bar at West LaFayette, Indiana. While at the bar, Claimant
engaged in a physical altercation with another patron, who was identified as an
Indiana State Police Officer. After returning to his table, Claimant was
approached by the Police Officer, accompanied by a fellow Police Officer, was
arrested and taken to jail. Claimant did not protect his assignment on April 7
and 8, 1982, nor did he notify any supervisory personnel of his predicament.
When he returned to work on April 9, 1982, he advised his Foreman that the reason
for having been absent from work on April 7 and 8, 1982, was due to being in
jail.
On April 22, 1982, Claimant was notified:
"You are hereby charged with failure to protect your
assignment on April 7 and April 8, 1982, and being off
without permission from proper authority from your
position of Backhoe Operator in Gang 109 presently
working at LaFayette, IN.
"You are also charged with violation of Rule G, Paragraph
5, of the Rules and Instructions of the Maintenance
of Way Department, which reads as follows: 'Employees
must maintain good moral character and avoid violations
of the law, and failure to do so will be subject to
dismissal.' This violation is a result of your being
found guilty of battery on police officer, resisting
law enforcement and given one year jail time, which
was suspended.
Award Number 25518 Page 2
Locket Number MW-25515
'Investigation of these charges will be conducted in the
Superintendent's Conference Room located on the First
Floor of the General Office Building, 908 West Broadway, Louisville, KY at 10:00 A.M. Friday, April
The investigation was postponed to May 7, 1982. A copy of the
Transcript has been made a part of the record. Following the investigation,
Claimant was notified on May 11, 1982, of his dismissal from service. The
investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. None of Claimant's
substantive procedural rights was violated.
There was substantial evidence presented in the investigation that
Claimant's failure to protect his assignment on April 7 and 8, 1982, was due to
his arrest and incarceration. Claimant testified that he was placed in jail
about 11:30 P. M., April 6, 1982, and released at 1:30 P. M., April 8. The Foreman
testified that he did not give Claimant permission to be absent, nor did he
receive any notice that Claimant would not be at work on April 7 and 8, 1982.
The record also shows that Claimant entered a guilty plea to charge of battery on
Police Officer and to resisting law enforcement, for which he was fined $50.00,
plus $50.00 court costs, and received a one year suspended jail sentence.
Carrier's Rule G, Paragraph 5, cited in the letter of charge, reads:
'Employes must maintain good moral character and
avoid violations of the law, and failing to do so,
will be subject to dismissal.·
Numerous Awards of this Board have held that incarceration is not a
valid reason for an employe failing to protect his assignment. Further, we
consider Claimant's violation of Rule "G", Paragraph 5, a serious offense under
the circumstances here involved. Also, Claimant's prior discipline record was
far from satisfactory.
There is no proper basis for the Board to interfere with the discipline
imposed by the Carrier.
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.
Award Number 25518 Page 3
Docket Number MW-25515
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
i
Attest:
Nancy ver - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of June 1985.