NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-26613
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(CL-10015) that:
1. Carrier violated the rules of the agreement when it dismissed
James W. Stiles, ID 1519065, from all service following an investigation held
on February 11, 1983.
2. Carrier shall reinstate James W. Stiles to service with all
rights unimpaired, clear his record of the charges and compensate him for all
compensation lost. Carrier shall also reimburse him for all health and
welfare benefits and dental benefits."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, an employe since June, 1978, was a furloughed
Clerk headquartered at Youngstown, Ohio. Under the
applicable Agreement, Claimant was entitled to receive a daily guarantee.
Claimant was required by the Carrier to respond, when called, for extra work
within a 30-mile radius of his headquartered point.
After receiving notice on January 14, 1983, that his grandmother
was ill, Claimant drove from his home in Warren, Ohio to Morgantown, West
Virginia. Claimant did not return until January 23, 1983. Claimant's grandmother died on January 27,
called but could not reach Claimant to fill Clerk positions. On January 23,
1983, Claimant accepted a call to fill a position starting at 7:00 A.M. but
then failed to report for the assignment due to oversleeping. Claimant was
then charged by the Carrier with failing to be available for service and failing to protect his assi
Claimant was dismissed from service.
Claimant's prior disciplinary record shows numerous instances of
failing to protect his assignments and resulting disciplinary actions including suspensions. In June
up to his obligations on the job, Claimant met with the Carrier's Division
Manager and Superintendent of Administration along with the organization's
local representative and Claimant requested the opportunity to eliminate
further cause for complaint. However, in November, 1982, Claimant nevertheless could not be reached
Award Number 26274 Page 2
Docket Number CL-26613
provide the Carrier information as to where he could be contacted. Claimant
was told by the Carrier's representatives that unless the problem was
resolved, he would be removed from the Protective List. The Carrier further
had to give Claimant two notifications in writing to provide the necessary
information and further had to advise Claimant that the protective benefits
due him were being suspended. Claimant did not provide the information until
December 15, 1982.
The Organization first challenges the conduct of the Investigation
contending that the Investigating Officer, Trainmaster T. L. Burch, foreclosed
Claimant and his representative from certain areas of inquiry thereby depriving Claimant of a fair a
the Agreement. We have closely examined the record and cannot conclude that
Claimant was deprived of a fair and impartial Hearing. The areas of inquiry
sought to be explored by Claimant and his representative concerned maintenance
of a vacation roster, notification of vacation time allowance, overtime and
rest days. We find that the areas of inquiry foreclosed by Investigating
Officer Burch were not ultimately material to the charges and the facts at
issue - i.e., Claimant's undisputed failure to make himself available for
calls and further failure to report after accepting an assignment. Nor do we
find that Claimant has been prejudiced as a result of other rulings by the .
Investigating Officer so as to cause a different result in this matter.
We do find that if the Investigating Officer had permited limited
questioning along some of the lines of inquiry foreclosed by him in this case,
the Board would not have had to examine a somewhat disjointed record and
address the kinds of issues injected into this case by virtue of the rulings
made. However, we cannot conclude that Claimant has been prejudiced by the
evidentiary rulings of the Investigating Officer or that his actions crossed
the line to amount to a denial of a fair and impartial investigation.
With respect to the merits of the Claim, the Organization asserts
that the Carrier did not give sufficient weight to the asserted mitigating
circumstances presented, i.e., the illness of Claimant's grandmother. We find
that the record evidence is sufficient for us to conclude that the Carrier's
assessment of dismissal was not an arbitrary or capricious action. Upon close
examination, the asserted mitigating circumstances, although unfortunate, are
not relevant. Claimant had a lengthy and recent history of engaging in the
precise conduct for which he was charged in this matter. Claimant, once
again, simply absented himself from contact with the Carrier and when he did
make contact with the Carrier and accepted an assignment, he failed to appear
for that assignment. Claimant had alternatives for protecting his job in
light of the circumstances presented. Claimant chose to ignore those alternatives and simply disappe
that its prior progressive disciplinary actions and chances given to Claimant
to correct his difficulties were of no avail. The Carrier's decision to
dismiss Claimant from service is supported by the record and the choice of
penalty cannot be considered arbitrary or capricious so as to amount to an
abuse of discretion.
Award Number 26274 Page 3
Docket Number CL-26613
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: ,
Nancy ~,09Dever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of April 1987.