Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 31139
Docket No. CL-31677
95-3-94-3-66
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Robert L. Hicks when award was rendered.
(Transportation Communications
(International Union
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL11005) that:
1. Carrier violated the clerks' Rules Agreement
when it issued discipline of actual dismissal
to Operator/Leverman, Mr. C.J. Pickett on the
date of March 10, 1993, following formal
investigation held on March 4, 1993.
2. Carrier's action in this case violated Rules
23, 24, 29 and any associated rules of the TCU
Agreement in effect between the parties.
3. Carrier shall now be required to reinstate
Claimant, Mr. C.J. Pickett to service with pay
for all time lost, seniority, vacation and all
other rights unimpaired effective March 10,
1993 and with claim continuing 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 employee or employees involved
in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Form 1 Award No. 31139
Page 2 Docket No. CL-31677
95-3-94-3-66
Claimant was suspended from service on February 22, 1993,
"***for your alleged violation of T. R.R.A. Rule "G" when
you tested positive on a reasonable cause urine test
administered at 10:30 P.M., Wednesday, February 17,
1993***."
On the same date, i.e., February 22, 1993, Claimant was
notified that an Investigation was being scheduled, following which
Claimant was dismissed from carrier's service.
The Organization has voiced several arguments in an effort to
throw out or at least modify the discipline of dismissal but these
have been neutralized by the carrier, in the on property handling.
Claimant's culpability was clearly established for the charges
assessed by the urinalysis and the observations of Carrier's
witness.
The only other factor to be determined is the discipline. Was
it arbitrary, harsh, etc. or was it appropriate?
A review of the employee's work record establishes that
Claimant, from December of 1979 to February 22, 1993 had been
disciplined five times.
He served three suspensions of 15, 30 and 45 days for various
infractions and he had been dismissed twice (both times the Board
reinstated Claimant with no pay for time lost). Furthermore, there
is no evidence of remorse by Claimant, nor is there any evidence of
Claimant taking any corrective action.
Obviously claimant has not learned by his mistakes and does
not understand that Carrier's Rules are to be followed. The Board
will not interfere with the discipline assessed.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Q$D$
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified
above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not
be made.
Form 1 Award No. 31139
Page 3 Docket No. CL-31677
95-3-94-3-66
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of September 1995.