BEFORE

PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 1281


UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION (T)

v.

PENN CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

FLNDINGS :
 For an occurrence on June 28, 19697 Caxrier timely filed charzes against Claimant and trial was timely held on July 11, 1969. Carrier, on July 18, 1969, found Claimant guilty and discipline of dismissal in all capacities was imposed. By letter dated July 30, 1969, Claimant appealed the imposition of the discipline to Superintendent-Personnel. The

 appeal was heard on August 22, 1969. The Superintendent denied the appeal on August 27, 1969. NO FURTHER ACTION WAS INITIATED BY CLAIMANT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 12, 1973 -- four (4) years after the denial of the discipline appeal.

UTU(T) wrote to Superintendent Labor Relations:







The copy of Mr, Morrow's letter r e.ds:



Superintendent Labor Relations replied by letter dated October 6, 2973:










                                          ¢'L 6 vo lab/ ,AGN J).ND .l q 7


A Joint Statement of Agreed Upon Facts including the respective position of the parties was executed on December 18, 1973. The position of each party as stated therein read.-;
      POSITION OF EMPLOYEES : 1. Mr. Czoka did not

      receive a rair triai because the Carrier brought out in the trial record on Page 8 of the transcript his work habit of marking off ox marking down or marking off on VRLI, which has no bearing on the charges brought against Mr. Czoka in this trial. It is our opinion the Company dismissed Trainman Qzoka for this work pattern not for the charges brought against him on July 12, 1969.

      2. Mr. B_ F. Mcrrow, former Local Chairman asked for a Joint Statement Of Agreed Upon Facts on October 2, 1969. This was not prepared until October 5, 1973. It is unfair for the Carrier to wait four years to prepare a Joint Statement Of Agreed Upon Facts. We, therefore, request Mr. Czoka be returned to duty with all seniority rights restored and he be paid for 211 time lost.


      POSITION OF COMPANY : The Employees' conten-

      tions indicate the appellant was not permitted a fair and impartial trial due to the fact the employee's past work record was brought out in the trial. The appellant's work record is considered poor by the Carrier, thus the Employees take exception to the right of the Carrier to submit supporting facts to their case. However, on the other hand, had the appellant had an impressive work record the Employees would most likely then insist the appellant's work record be admitted as a supporting fact. The allegation made by the Employees is without basis as the appellant's past work record should be a proper part of the trial proceed ings.

      The present Local Chairman is grasping for support to defend the appellant, at this late date, indicating it was unfair for the Carrier to wait four years to prepare a Joint Submission, thus indicating the Carrier and not the Employees are in error. The Chairman's contention is based on the fact he has a copy of a letter signed by the former Local Chairman dated October 2, 1969 addressed to the Superintendent-Labor Relations requesting a Joint Submission be formulated in the case at hand. The present Local Chairman, however, does not know if the letter was sent. From me date of October 2, iasa, until September 12) 1973,

                                        PL 6 ND - I -~l

                                        ~$wo N,- -IY7


      the Carrier heard nothing of this case and the Employees had never made mention of any sort on the case as to wheel the Carrier received the letter, or if an attempt would be made by the Carrier to prepare the case. The Local Chairman was advised by a cover letter dated October 5, 1973; with the prepared joint Statement Of Agreed Upon Facts, in reply to the Chairman's letter of September i2, 1973, that, in fact, our files on the employee were in storage in Philadelphia. If the Chairman was so interested in the appellant being returned to service why has it taken four years to make any comment on the cafe?

      It is apparent little concern ;0.s put on this particular matter by the Chairman involved until the appellant himself made inquiry, at this late date.

The appellant, notwithstanding the foregoing, was disciplined on the basis of the charged offense which is supported by the trial record, He did, in feet, fail to immediately report an alleged personal injury and obtain medical attention for this same alleged injury. Discipline should, therefore, stand as instituted with no further action to be taken. This Hoard will deny the Claim for the following reasons: I. Claimant had the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence of probative value that the letter allegedly written by Local Chairman Morrow on October 2, 1969, was in fact transmitted to Carrier. Claimant

 failed to satisfy the burden;
 II. Even if the letter was transmitted Claimant, as moving party, had the obligation of promptly pursuing the request if Carrier failed to reply within a: reasonable time. Claimant failed to do so;
 171. The objective of The Railway Labor Act is "to provide for the prompt disposition of disputes between carriers and their employees ....
                                                  "


Section 2 (4) of the Act, captioned "GENERAL PURPOSES," reads: "The
purposes of the Act are... to provide for the prompt and orderly settle ment of all disputes concerning... rules, or working conditions.

                        -4-

                                        pea 100- i.~9/ /awO -')J 1Y7


        Under the caption "GENERAL DUTIES" paragraph Second of


                                            t

the Act reads: "All disputes between a carrier or carriers and is or their employees shall be considered, and, if possible, decided, with all expedition... " ; and

      IV. Claimant's nonfeasance -- for a period of four (9) ygarg

followir_g Carrier's final denial of the Claim -- car. be construed only as constructive acceptance of the final denial; or, abandonment of the Claim.
      AWARD : Claim DENIED.


      ORDER : The Award, supra, shall be effective as of the date of its issuance shown below.


                    'L < < < ~~*. 7 L~.

                    John , orsey

                Chavman & Neutral Member


        a

        s

Wilson P. J. Mc amara
 C rier Member Employee Member

 Issued at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania this 18th day of December, 1975.

                        -5-