Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 38057
Docket No. SG-37538
07-3-02-3-601
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 70 and 80, when it failed to allow the
Claimant an unjust treatment hearing as a result of having to move
his truck back to his headquarters after dealing with a family
emergency on July 1, 2001. Carrier's File No. 1283660. General
Chairman's File No. N70 80-213. BRS File Case No. 12264-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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Form 1 Award No. 38057
Page 2 Docket No. SG-37538
07-3-02-3-601
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 be 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 beneft 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. 38057
Page 3 Docket No. SG-37538
07-3-02-3-601
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders
that an award favorable to the Ciaimant(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.