NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 25888
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-25729
Lamont E. Stallworth, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
(
(Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-9861) that:
1. Carrier violated the terms of the current Agreement, particularly Rule 21, when under date of
days' suspension as a result of a formal investigation which was held in an
untimely manner on May 15, 1981, and
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate the Claimant J. D.
Sandmeier for all time lost as a result of such discipline and that his record
be cleared of the alleged charges."
OPINION OF BOARD: The Organization has pursued this claim on the basis of a
time limits violation and has not dealt with the
substance of Carrier's charges, except as regards to supervision. The
transcript of the record is clear. Claimant did falsify his expense reports
to the extent of approximately $48, and this was in an expense report covering
the period March 24 through April 23, 1981, while Claimant was assigned to the
position of Chief Yard Clerk. An
investigation was
set to start May 8, 1981,
and was rescheduled for May 15, 1981.
Paragraph (a) of Rule 21 of the Clerk's Agreement requires that all
investigations be held:
... within seven calendar days of the alleged offense or within
seven calendar days of the date information concerning the alleged
offense has reached his supervising officer."
The term "supervising officer" is critical in this case. If the
"supervising officer" of Claimant was the Agent, Mr. Goin, then notice was not
timely. On the other hand, if the "supervising officer" of Claimant was
Assistant Division Manager Michaels, then the notice was timely since it took
some time for the information to reach Mr. Michaels.
Mr. Goin was serving as Agent with some level of supervisory responsibility over Claimant Sandme
submit his expenses to Agent Goin. He did that "... at the end of April ... .
Agent Goin further had apparent authority to instruct employes on the appropriate number of miles to
supervisory direction to Claimant in instructing him to cut his mileage
expense claims.
Award Number 25888 Page 2
Docket Number CL-25729
Thus, Agent Goin was aware of the problem "at the end of April", and
Agent Goin did have supervisory responsibility over Mr. Sandmeier. Carrier
seeks to dismiss this by interpreting the Rules language "supervising officer"
to mean "company officer". The Board is not persuaded that the Agreement
writers were unable to say that if it was, indeed, what they intended.
Carrier also argues that the Agency could not be the Supervisor
because both the Agent and the Chief Yard Clerk positions are covered by the
Clerk's Agreement. While that may be unusual in most industries, it is
certainly not unusual in the railroad industry. If the governing word is
"officer", then it should appear in the Rule. It does not. If positions
under the same agreement are not allowed to supervise each other, evidence to
that effect should be presented. It was not.
The Board must conclude that Agent Goin was the "supervising
officer" as contemplated in Rule 21. The Board further points out that it is
incumbent on the Carrier to hold its supervisory employes to strict standards
of compliance with the time limits of the labor agreements under which they
operate. This is as true of its Agents as it is of its Assistant Division
Managers.
For these reasons, the Board is convinced that Rule 21 was violated,
and that in the long standing practices of this Board, such violation of time
limits causes us to sustain the claim.
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 violated.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJI;4TMENT BOARD
By Order of Third 1?'ivision
Attest:
Nancy J D r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1986.