Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28823
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-29282
91-3-90-3-200
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert W. McAllister when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brother
hood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago Northwestern
Transportation Company (CNWT):
Claim on behalf of J. C. Ott for five days pay at his pro-rata rate
of pay, account of the Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as
amended, particularly, Rule 51, when it did not hold an investigation within
the time limits of that rule after it had removed him from service on January
27, 1989, following an incident at Rohling Road." G.C. File CSNW-G-AV-155._
Carrier file 79-89-7. BRS File Case No. 7923-CNWT.
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 employed as a signalman. On January 27, 1989, the
Claimant was one of three signal maintenance men assigned to repair the grade
crossing at Rohling Road, Palatine, Illinois. Repairs were made to the crossing protection, and thre
The record reveals the two other maintainers acknowledged they failed to perform any test and accept
relay caused the malfunction. On January 27, 1989, the Claimant was given
notice to attend a formal investigation on February 2 to "...determine your
responsibility in compromising the safety of the crossing protection at
Rohling Road on January 27, 1989." After that hearing was held, the Claimant
was issued a five (5) day suspension.
Form 1 Award No. 28823
Page 2 Docket No. SG-29282
91-3-90-3-200
The Organization argues Rule 51 requires the Carrier to hold an
investigation within three (3) days if an employee is held out of service.
The Organization points out the Claimant was removed from service on January
27, 1989, and stresses the February 2 investigation occurred six (6) days
after the Claimant's removal from service. The pertinent language of Rule 51
relied upon by the Organization is as follows:
"The investigation will be held within ten (10) days
from date of alleged offense or after information of
the alleged offense has reached the supervisor, except that where an employee is held out of service
pending investigation same will be held within three
working days from date taken out of service."
The Board has reviewed the record and finds the Claimant was not held
out of service for allegedly compromising the safety of the crossing protection at Rohling Road. Rat
out of service" for insubordination in that he refused to submit to drug testing. With respect to th
shows that repairs were made to the crossing protection equipment, but no
tests were made by any of the maintainers, including the Claimant, which would
have revealed that the relay had been tripped. This Board concludes the
Organization's procedural argument is without merit and finds the evidence of
record supports the Carrier's conclusion. In so finding, we will deny the
claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
4iicaw
Nancy J. #0Mr - Executive Secretary
red at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of June 1991.