Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29006
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-29202
91-3-90-3-67
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Gil Vernon when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company



(1) Carrier violated the Working Agreement, particularly Rules 8 and 34, among others, when it disqualified Mr. F. L. Walters from the Rate Analyst position on November 4, 1988, without just and sufficient cause and refused to grant his request for a Hearing to investigate the matter.

(2) Carrier shall now be required to compensate Mr. Walters for the difference in pay between the Rate Analyst position ($122.78 per day) and the Rate Clerk position ($111.84 per day), which he now holds, or any other lower rated position that he may have held subsequent to his disqualification, from November 4, 1988 and each subsequent date until such time as he is reinstated to the position o
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.



On September 26, 1988, the Claimant acquired a Rate Analyst position in the Marketing Department Michigan, by the exercise of seniority. On November 3, 1988, the Claimant was advised he was disqualified from the position.

On November 8, 1988, the Local Chairman requested an Unjust Treatment Hearing under Rule 34 and filed a claim for the difference in wages between the Rate Analyst position and the position to which the Claimant returned. The Carrier denied both requests.
Form 1 Award No. 29006
Page 2 Docket No. CL-29202
91-3-90-3-67

It is the opinion of the Board that the portion of the claim demanding an Unjust Treatment Hearing must be sustained. Rule 34 provides:



There simply is no justification for not granting the request for a Hearing. The Carrier argued unpersuasively that Rule 8 provided an opportunity for a Hearing, and th The Carrier misconstrues the nature of the Hearing of Rule 8(d). It states:



Obviously, there is not an opportunity for the Claimant, but for the Carrier, to hold a Hearing to remove an employee from a position prior to 30 days.

The Claimant is entitled to a Hearing. The claim for time lost cannot be ruled on until the evidence is arrived at that Hearing. The claim for lost time can be refiled upon the conclusion of that Hearing.






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
      ,~Z.-MQ0E

        Nancy ver·- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of September 1991.