Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 38056
Docket No. SG-37537
07-3-02-3-600
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Union Pacific (UP):
Claim on behalf of D. E. Beck, for three hours at his time and onehalf rate of pay, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
Agreement, particularly Rules 13, 15, 70 and 80, when it refused to
provide the Claimant with transportation to his headquarters on
June 30, 2001, to respond to a trouble call east of CPA 133 at Tama,
Iowa, and deprived the Claimant of the opportunity to perform this
work. Carrier compounded this violation by not allowing the
Claimant to have an unjust treatment hearing. Carrier's File No.
1283161. General Chairman's File No. N13 15-217. BRS File Case
No. 12262-UP."
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.
Form 1 Award No. 38056
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37537
07-3-02-3-600
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
This is a companion case to the matter considered in Third Division Award
38001. The facts and circumstances are identical to the facts in the foregoing
Award, with the exception of the dates involved. For the purposes of confirming our
position in that Award, we quote from the prior case:
"With respect to the merits of the monetary claim, the Board
reviewed the record and finds no evidence to contradict the
Carrier's position that the only employees, regardless of seniority,
who are allowed to use Company vehicles to return to their
residences are those who will he available for call. There is no
documentation in this record to suggest that the Claimant was
available for call, but was denied the use of a Company vehicle.
Thus the Board finds that that portion of the claim must be denied.
However, despite the Carrier's cavalier attitude regarding the
Unjust Treatment Hearing, it does not have the latitude to simply
ignore such a request, if timely made. To allow such discretion
would be to irreparably damage the plain contract language in Rule
70. The purpose of that Rule is to allow an employee who believes -
ri2htly or wrongly - that he or she has been unjustly treated to
request a hearing into the matter. Nowhere in that Rule does it
provide for the Carrier to pre-judge the matter and ignore a
claimant's request based simply upon its best guess regarding the
validity of the claim."
There, as here, the Board found, "albeit too late to benefit the Claimant," that
he was entitled to an Unjust Treatment Hearing as requested, and that the Carrier
violated Rule 70 by ignoring that request.
AWARD
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
Form 1 Award No. 38056
Page 3 Docket No. SG-37537
07-3-02-3-600
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) 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.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of January 2007.