The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Edwin H. Benn when award was rendered.
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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Pursuant to claimant's request for a hearing before this Board, and after notice thereon, the Board convened in Chicago, Illinois on February 6, 1996. Notwithstanding Claimant's request for a hearing, Claimant did not appear at the designated time and place. After waiting a reasonable period of time, this Board proceeded with consideration of arguments. Form 1 Award No. 31517
After Investigation conducted on February 6, 1991, Claimant, a Clerk in the Carrier's Seattle Crew Office, was assessed a 30 day suspension for misconduct on December 2, 1990.
The record shows that on the morning of December 2, 1990, Claimant was derisive and disrespectful to Chief Crew Clerk D. R. Munger as Claimant attempted to determine the location of an employee via the computer system. Aside from Munger' s testimony to that end, a corroborating version of the incident was offered by Chief Clerk G. H. Smith (Tr. 20):
Claimant's statements to Munger were picked up on recording equipment in the Dispatcher's office. A phone left off the hook which was connected to the Dispatcher's office resulted in the following transcription of the incident as Claimant attempted to determine the location of an employee:
vulgar language is forbidden . ....') and Safety Rule 564 ('Employees will not be retained in service who are ... insubordinate ... quarrelsome or otherwise vicious ....').
With respect to the amount of discipline, given the extent of Claimant's misconduct, we cannot say that a 30 day suspension was arbitrary or capricious.
The parties' procedural arguments do not change the result. In light of the result, the Carrier's argument that the claim was not appealed in accord with the provisions of Rule 56 is moot. Claimant's argument that he was denied a fair Investigation is rejected. Our review of the record shows the Investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. moreover, with respect to Claimant's contention that he was entiti=d to pre-investigation discovery, no rule support exists for such an assertion.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.