:44RD N0. 121
Case No. 145
PUBLIC L.44 BOARD N0. 1562
PARTIES) TUE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA F2 RAIL~dAY COMP6:L4IY
TO )
.DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCZ OF WAY EHPLOYEL;S
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Carrier violated Article V of the Agreement by unjustly
removing Los Angeles Division Trackman Robert Luckett from service
December 5, 19715 for alleged flagrant violation of
C;:z,~:x..;~
rules;
continuing Mr
. Luckett out of service after formal investigation
held December 12, 1978; and failing to render a decision after formal
investigation December 12, 1978.
2. That the Carrier reinstate Mr. Luckett to service with seniority,
vacation, all benefit rights unimpaired and compens;ctioci for all wage
loss beginning December 5, 1978, continuing forward.
FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties
herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.
In this dispute the claimant was notified to attend a formal investigation to determine the facts and place the responsibility concerning his refusal to perform duties as instructed by the foreman
and roadmaster and being insubordinate and quarrelsome on December
5, 1978.
Pursuant to the investigation on January 10, 7979 the claimant was
written a letter advising him the result of the formal investigation
waich was his removal from service for violation of Rules 2, 6, 14
and 16 of the General Rules for the Guidance of Employees, Form 2620
Standard.
The organization contends that at the conclusion of the investigation
the Carrier failed to render a discipline decision or determine tile
claimant's responsibility for the charges. The Organization also
contends that
a decision on the formal investigation did not accompany the transcript which the Carrier mailed to the claimant and the
claimant's representative, Assistant Gene_al Chairman Wolfersberger.
The Organization contends that the evidence is insufficient to find
the claimant guilty of a violation of Rule G and that the roadmaster's
inability to understand the claimant's words was because the claimant
was a black man, and the roadmaster did not understand the accent.
l~d=~ - .k:aru
:4o.
121
~.li'u. G
The Oroanizatiou also contends that it was an error for the Carrier
to question tile claiii:ant without Union representation pzesent on
uecoitiuer 5, 1973. T;,e Organization also urges
tiiaL clic
Carrier
erred in not calling additional witnesses at the i:wesci6ation.
The Board has examined the transcript of record and the evidence
indicates tact the claimant was guilty of being inSubordiLlate,
quarrelsome and under the influence of intoxicants arid/or narcotic::
in violation of the rules.
It is also noted that the claimant was employed August S, 1977 and
had been suspended sixty days on April 27, 1978 and also assesses
twenty uamerits for being absent from duty November 28 and 29 and
December 1 , 1 978. Under .:Lose ciiuwastances peL:.:anent discharge
is fully justified.
The evidence indicates that pursuant to the investigation the Carrier did render a decision as required by the agreement. The evidence regarding the claimant's manner of speech is not the only evidence regarding his being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
There was evidence of record which supported this charge.
There is no evidence of record that the claimant requested Union representation at any time he was being questioned by the road.aaster,
and there is no basis to set aside the decision on tbose grounds.
The evidence also indicates that the Carrier called all necessary
witnesses for the investigation, and other witnesses were not requested by the claimant. Under the circumstances herein tae Board
finds no justification to overrule the decision of the Carrier.
AWARD: Claim denied
reston J. ore, Caairman
0
anization hle:aoer
Ig- ~,
L't