The Claimant was charged with being rude to a customer and placing her on hold unnecessarily, while the customer was making an inquiry concerning a ticketing matter. Following an Investigation on these charges, at which a copy of the customer's letter of complaint was made a part of the record, and the customer testified by telephone, the Claimant was disciplined with a ten day suspension. The Organization appealed the discipline on a variety of contentions. It argues that the Claimant was denied a fair and impartial Investigation when the Claimant was not afforded the opportunity to face her accuser. Second, it argues that there was no basis for the Hearing Officer to conclude that the Claimant's testimony was less credible than that of her accuser. And, third, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the Claimant was indeed rude to the customer.
The Carrier argues that the Claimant's guilt was clearly established. Further, it was not improper to take testimony over the telephone. Further, the discipline assessed was appropriate under the circumstances. The Carrier's singular basis for the assessment of discipline in this matter was the letter written by the customer and her testimony at the Claimant's Hearing, taken by telephone. The Carrier, it is apparent, blindly accepted the customer's perception of being treated rudely and being placed on hold unnecessarily, without consideration of the Claimant's side of the story. It seems that instead of balancing the evidence fairly the scales were tipped against the Claimant. In Award 4 of Special Board of Adjustment No. 1068 Referee Vaughn discussed the perspective to be used in weighing evidence connected with customer complaints. Here it was noted:
In the application of the above to this case, it should be noted that the Board has serious problems with the testimony of the customer. Her complaint was that the Claimant would not let her ask a question when the Claimant was explaining to her the procedures for purchasing a ticket, and that the Claimant put her on hold with "music blaring in her ear." The Claimant testified that she was merely explaining procedures to a customer that the Claimant perceived as experiencing difficulties in understanding what was being said, and when the customer shouted at her to "shut up" she put her on hold to let the matter cool down.
Review of the customer's response at the Hearing, to questions asked by the Claimant's Representative, indicates to the Board that this customer is a person difficult to deal with, and suggests that this was the situation in her dealings with the Claimant. The Claimant's Representative opened his inquiry with four simple questions, which were answered, and then observed:
From our review of the transcript the Board is unable to find a basis, even a hint of a basis, to support the customer's notion that the Claimant's Representative was badgering her in his questioning. Instead, what seems to be the case is that the customer became annoyed with the questions that were being asked. The Board's assessment of her becoming annoyed is supported by the customer's response a few moments later that she felt that one of the questions was irrelevant. This, as wen as other statements in the transcript, which need not be visited in great detail here, cast doubts on the customer's credibility.
Furthermore, the customer told the Claimant to shut up when the Claimant was explaining the ticket policy, and the customer acknowledged that she was rude. In this record there is no doubt that the customer most certainly contributed to the situation and it is obvious that her assessment of the Claimant's treatment to her was not reasonable, and may very well be overstated. The Board, therefore, concludes that the assessment of the Hearing Officer that the Claimant's conduct was inappropriate to the e:tent of supporting discipline is not supported by the record. The discipline assessed will be reversed.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.