Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28060
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-28242
89-3-88-3-76
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-10241) that:
1. Carrier violated the TCU (formerly BRAC) Agreement, expressly
Rules 24, 16, 28, 29 and 30 contained therein when it issued discipline of
actual dismissal to Mr. L. Wicks on the date of March 6, 1987, following
investigation held on the date of March 4, 1987.
2. Carrier's action was harsh, unwarranted, bordering on an abuse of
discretion due to the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Mr. Wicks to service
with pay for all time lost, seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired including but not li
benefits effective March 6, 1987, and continuing five (5) days per week until
corrected."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was employed as a yard clerk by Carrier. On February 25,
1987, Claimant was notified to attend a formal investigation of the charge:
Form 1 Award No. 28060
Page 2 Docket No. CL-28242
89-3-88-3-76
"to develop the fact, discover the cause and
determine your responsibility, if any, in
connection with your alleged violation of
General Rule 'P' on February 24, 1987, in that
you were marked off sick with this Carrier while
holding other employment."
The hearing took place on March 4, 1987, and as a result, Claimant was dismissed from the Carrie
on Claimant's behalf, challenging his dismissal.
This Board has reviewed the entire record in this case, and we find
that there is insufficient evidence to support the procedural argument raised
by the Organization. Claimant was properly represented although not by the
Representative of his choice. We find no contractual infirmity in such action
and such does not, in this case, render Carrier's action a denial of Claimant's contractual rights.<
With respect to the substantive issue, this Board finds that there is
sufficient evidence in the record to support the guilty finding. This Board
also finds that the wrongdoing of the Claimant justified his dismissal. Therefore, the Claim must be
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of August 1989.