fAI,TIES) TILL: ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SAUCA FL 1L°~11,W:,Y COMPAJY
 To )
 DISPUTE) Lc UTahMOOD OF I-MNTELIAilCL 0=' i-_ 'Ay ELLPLO11::L.S

 S`TATJ:J1E I:

Claim (1) . That the Atc:llisorl, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company violated the agreement entered into with the Brotherhood of Mainteiiance of Way Employees by disciplining Mr. Ortowski without first according him an investi.-ation, den;·ing i4_-. Orto-.aski a rct>resenLative of his choice, not informing l:r. Ortowsl:i of his ri-ilts under tile af,reelrient and coercing a resignation from Mr. Ortowski under durresu. These violations occurred Sep::,ai.bcr -1/, 1979.

 Claim (2) . That the Carrier lloo: reinstate Mr. Or tuwjki to service with seniority, vacation and all other benefit rights unilllpaired and compensation for all wage loss beginning September 17, 1979 continuing forward until he is reinstated. Such compensation to accrue interest at six (li) percent per annum.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 15042 finds that the parties lcrein are Carrier and Employee within the llleaning of the Railway Labor !pct, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimant was employed on an E:ara Gang working; near Wayne, Oklahoma September 17, 1979 when members of the Carrier's Special Service Department arrived and ordcrc:d Llie employees not to move as they :were going; to make a search for drugs, alcohol and firearms.

 The claimant had driven to work on September 17 ill his vehicle but the vehicle was parked off company property. <. special agent began questioning the claimant and asked the claimant if he :could sign a release so they could search his vehicle located off company.property.

 The claimant refuses this: request, and the agent allegedly advised the claimant that the most that could happen to him if they found :11lything was that the cowpany could fire hill for thirty uavL; or so. Tile claimant again refused to sign the search colls,2nt, and the a,ent advised the claimant that if he dill riot sign, tic-, would get tile local authorities to search his vehicle.

 The ciaimant still refused to sign and wanted to know his alternatives. Allcgedly the agent advised the claimsllt that the only way lie would not call tile local authorities to search t:ie car would be for the claimant to submit his resignation of employment with the Carrier.


The claimant signed his resignation, and the Organization has now appealed the claim, alleging that the claimant was coerced into signing the resignation and that the Carrier violated his civil rights. The Organization alleges that Lite claimant was entitled to the " hliranda" rights.

 The evidence indicates that the special agents did not threaten the claimant but merely answered his questions and advised him the only other alternative and what the special agents would do.

 Under the circumstances herein the Board has no authority. The claimant submitted his resignation, and the Board does not have the authority to set aside that _esignation.
As a matter of gassing, the Board might note that this is not; a court of criminal law, and Cite claimant is not entitled to the "itiranda" rights, i.e., the notification that he has the right to remain silent and have the right to representation, and that any statement he might make can be used against him. That issue is not involved herein.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

                            r '7

                                      i 1 :o


                            Preston V huoze, C;zairman


                            JS

                            0rga ization 1lemlier


                            c

                            Carr xei6/ .em er


August 19, 1980