Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28554
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27179
90-3-86-3-386
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

Machine Operator James Iverson, Jr. shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered beginning with June 7, 1985 and continuing until he is returned to his position as machine operator with seniority as such restored and unimpaired because of the Ca in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 14 (A) 1 (System File MW-85-39-CB/53/844)."

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.

The Claimant was disqualified as a Machine Operator effective May 8, 1985, for his involvement in an accident with an automobile at a road crossing. The Claimant was ope separate notice, the Claimant was withheld from service and issued a thirty (30) calendar day suspension. The Organization argues the two actions acted to deprive the Claimant of a fair and impartial hearing as required by Article 14. In effect, the Organization contends the suspension and disqualification form discipline which must be considered to be in excess of thirty (30) days.




Form 1 Award No. 28554
Page 2 Docket No. MW-27179
90-3-86-3-386
days. An employe thus disciplined may, upon making a
written request within 10 days to the officer author
ized to receive same, be given a fair and impartial
investigation by an authorized Carrier officer. If
no request for investigation is received, the disci
pline will be considered as accepted."

The record reveals the Claimant did not, as required under revised Article 14, request an Investigation. Analysis of the Organization's position that the imposition of a suspension coupled with disqualification somehow voids the clear language of revised Article 14 is without support. Accordingly, the Claimant must be day suspension.

On May 16, 1985, the Carrier's Regional Engineer advised the Claimant he was disqualified as a Machine Operator. Article 48, Un=·ust Treatment, states:



From the above, it is evident that if the Claimant believed his disqualification was unjust, he in Article 48. The Claimant did not. In the interim, a considerable period of time has passed, and this Board believes the disqualification will clearly have served its purpose. Accordingly, the Board directs the Carrier to rescind the Claimant's disqua the Claimant is advised that it has been previously held that the Carrier is the sole judge of an employee's ability to qualify for promotion as well as to judge an employee's ability to continue in such a position.






                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: _
Ancy J ver - Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of September 1990.