Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 32065
Docket No. CMS-32730
97-3-96-3-33
The Third Division consisted
of
the regular members and in addition Referee
Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(Sabrina McCrae
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That Ms. McCrae was employed by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation from June, 1993 to and
including February 2, 1995, when she was disqualified from
her position as a Crew Management Representative.
2. That during her probation period, Ms. McCrae had no
problems performing her job duties and received good job
evaluations from supervisors Patricia Glace, Milton Lundy
and Michael Kates. Written copies
of
the job evaluations
were not furnished to the Crew Representatives. Job
evaluations were completed while the Crew Representative
was present and were shown to the person being evaluated
and the evaluation was placed in everyone's individual tile.
3. That from September, 1993 to the time
of
her
disqualification, Ms. McCrae was subjected to severe,
excessive and inexcusable harassment by Director, Paul
Bello. This harassment stemmed from a grievance, signed by
Ms. McCrae and other Crew Management Representatives,
protesting the placement
of
Ms. Teresa Brooks, Crew
Management Secretary, in a Crew Management
Representative position, causing a displacement in seniority
positions for all Crew Management Representatives which
were chosen. Ms. Brooks appointment also caused a Crew
Form 1 Award No. 32065
Page 2 Docket No. MS-32730
97-3-96-3-33
Management Representative, Ms. Tammie Pratt to be
furloughed.
4. That Paul Bello, Director-Crew Management Center,
violated the civil rights of all African American Crew
Management Representatives when he stated: `If you do not
like my decisions, you can leave. I am God. If it were up to
me, I would not have brought you here. You are here
because I had no choice since you belong to the union.'
5. That the Director of Crew Management Center and the
General Chairman of the Transportation Communications
Union, Anthony Santoro, agreed upon an arrangement which
allowed Ms. Brooks to become a Crew Management
Representative even though she was not qualified. Crew
Management Representative positions were to be offered to
displaced Crew Base personnel and clerks first before
positions were offered to other employees. Nepotism was
practiced since Ms. Brooks is Mr. Santoro's sister.
6. That Ms. McCrae was constantly called into Mr. Bello's
office and received belittling and degrading remarks by the
Director. To witness these counseling, a supervisor was
present Harassment was constant and included incidents
such as: being required to work alone during a ten hour shift
and handle all calls for the entire country alone, when a
fellow co-worker started an altercation, he was reprimanded
less severely than Ms. McCrae, shift reports of Ms.
McCrae's disappeared which made it look as though Ms.
McCrae did not complete her job duties, being placed on a
faulty phone line and being accused of handling less calls
than other co-workers. Ms. McCrae was falsely accused of
being rude toward a caller and Paul Bello demanded that a
letter of apology be written or termination from her position
would follow. Ms. McCrae was told by Paul Bello that her
co-workers feared her and that she was un-cooperative to
work with.
Form 1 Award No. 32065
Page 3 Docket No. MS-32730
97-3-96-3-33
7. That on February 2, 1995, Ms. McCrae returned to work
from using compensatory days, which had accumulated
because she was refused any days off that were requested,
and was called into the office by Paul Bello. A supervisor
was present when Paul Bello engaged in a heated discussion
concerning a late arrival. Paul Bello directed me to leave the
Center, but decided against the decision after the supervisor
announced his needing Ms. McCrae to work.
8. That later that afternoon after taking calls and
performing my duties, Ms. McCrae was tapped on the
shoulder by Paul Bello and told to come to his office. On this
occasion, Ms. McCrae was disqualified and was told to leave
the Crew Management Center. Paul Bello did not follow any
procedures as outlined in the union contract; in particular
holding an investigation. Paul Bello also had not contacted
the union and made them aware
of
his intentions to terminate
Ms. McCrae. All counseling and the disqualifications, were
performed without Ms. McCrae's ability to be represented
by a Union Representative as stipulated in the contract. Paul
Bello further violated the contract by not supplying a written
document expressing an intent to disqualify Ms. McCrae
during the twenty-two days Ms. McCrae was off duty. An
unjust treatment hearing was requested by Ms. McCrae in
accordance with the contract, and the request was denied by
Mr. L. D. Miller, Director
of
Labor Relations. This action
violated the contractual rights
of
Ms. McCrae.
9. That after the disqualification
of
Ms. McCrae, Kevin
O'Connell was replaced by Anthony Santoro, who proceeded
to handle this case. Mr. Santoro did not furnish any
grievance documents nor decisions to Ms. McCrae. In
December
of 1995,
Mr. Santoro informed Ms. McCrae that
everything had been done and that her case would not be
appealed further.
Form 1 Award No. 32065
Page 4 Docket No. MS-32730
97-3-96-3-33
10. That Mr. Santoro never assisted Ms. McCrae in locating
another position with the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation. Ms. McCrae has been in a non-active status
since February of 1995 and has not been assigned to another
job that she is qualified to work.
I am requesting reinstatement to my former position as a Crew
Management Representative and paid all wages due, from February, 1995
to and including the present time. I am also requesting that all seniority
rights be restored and unimpaired."
(:ENDINGS:
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.
The Claimant in this dispute entered service on August 16, 1979, as a Reservation
and Information Clerk. At the time
of
the instant dispute, she held the appointed
position
of
Crew Management Representative at the Crew Management Center in
Baltimore, Maryland. By letter
of
February 7, 1995, Claimant was notified she was
disqualified from her Crew Management position effective February 6, 1995.
Claimant's Union Representative requested that the Director
of
Labor Relations hold
an Unjust Treatment Hearing by letter
of
February 27, 1995. (n his denial of the
request, the Director pointed out that no rule of the CMR Agreement granted Claimant
the right to an Unjust Treatment Hearing. On March 29, 1995, the Union
Representative filed a claim with Director Paul Bello of the Crew Management Center
seeking Claimant's return to the position of Crew Management Representative and
compensation equal to what she could have earned had she not been disqualified from
Form 1 Award No. 32065
Page Docket No. MS-32730
97-3-96-3-33
that position. That claim was denied and subsequently progressed in the usual manner
including conference on the property. By letter of January 11, 1996, Claimant served
notice that she was filing a Submission with the Board as set forth in her statement.
That claim as filed is entirely different from the original claim progressed by the Union
on the property.
Claimant's position is clearly set forth in her lengthy Statement of Claim (above).
It is the position of the Carrier that such a new claim is not properly before this Board.
Before addressing that matter, however, there are other issues in the claim that must be
addressed. First, there is no evidence on the record to support Claimant's allegations
of harassment. Moreover, in light of the manner in which the Union processed the
original grievance, there is not an iota of proof that there was any "conspiracy" between
the Union and Carrier against Claimant.
Carrier is correct that the instant matter is improperly before the Board. As we
noted in Third Division Award 10873, where the basis for a claim as argued by the
petitioner is a departure (in the instant case a great departure) from that offered in
support of the claim on the property, it constitutes a new claim and cannot properly be
presented, de novo, before the Board. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed.
Having made its finding, however, the Board must make an additional comment
concerning the Claimant's present non-active status. It is apparent that Claimant's
"non-active" status is of her own making. The record indicates that while Claimant
started service with Amtrak on August 16, 1979, as an on-board service attendant
(represented by the Amtrak Service Workers Council) she established clerical seniority
(represented by the Transportation Communications International Union) on April 28,
1986, as a Reservation and Information Clerk in Chicago. Subsequently, Claimant was
promoted to Crew Management Representative (CMR) in Baltimore on June 1, 1993.
In accordance with Rule 2(d) of the parties' January 6, 1993 CMR Agreement,
Claimant continued to accumulate seniority on the Chicago clerical seniority roster.
When disqualified from the CMR position effective February 6, 1995, Claimant was
entitled to exercise Chicago clerical seniority per Rule 22 (c) of the Amtrak-TCU
Corporate Agreement by bidding bulletined positions. That option remains open to her.
Form 1 Award No. 32065
Page 6 Docket No. MS-32730
97-3-96-3-33
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of June 1997.