PARTIES TO DISPU'O
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
VS.
Norfolk and Western Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement by dismissing
Extra Gang Laborer Roy Barton, on July 2, 1976, from Carrier's
service in an unjustified and arbitrary manner.
2. Claimant, Roy Harton be reinstated with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and that he be compensated
for all money Loss .suffered by him, beginning May 26, 1976 up to
the date he has been reinstated.'
FINDINGS: This Board upon the whole record and all the
evidence finds that:
The Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended.
OPINION:
The Claimant was taken out of service on May 26, 1976,
on a charge of sleeping on duty. The record shows that the
Tie Gang, of which the Claimant was,a member, was in the process of moving from Canton, Ohio, to Cleveland. The Claimant
rode in a private automobile with another employee and, according to the Claimant's testimony, the two employees were
delayed enroute for reasons which had been made known to his
supervisor beforehand; according to the Claimant,-the supervisor
advised them if they were not at the new site by noon, they would
be off-duty for the remainder of the day. The result was their
arrival at the
no
location after 12:00 no
I*
and the other crew
members had left for a new work assignment. According to the
Claimant, the Trainmaster at the new location was contacted upon
their arrival and told the two employees to wait for the crew's
return. Thus, according to the Claimant, based upon the statement
he contends was made by his foreman, he assumed himself to not be .
under pay and not on duty. The Organization also asserts that the
hearing officer prejudiced the proceeding by hearing testimony of
Carrier witnesses and that the Claimant's guilt was prejudged by
the charging officials.
As regards the Organization's claim that the hearing was not
procedurally correct, we find no flaws of sufficient gravity to
upset the Carrier's decision. We note that the Claimant had two
year's service at the time of this incident. While we shall conclude that the Agreement was not violated in this case and assuming
that the Claimant will recognize the Board's action for what it is - -
a "last chance" - - we shall return him to duty with the strong
admonishment that he should be an exemplary employee in the future.
AWARD:
The Claimant will now be returned to Service, with full
seniority rights but without pay for time lost.
Ja -s F. Scearce
Ne ral Member
G.
C. Edwards Fred Wurper. / /
Carrier Member Organization Member
Dated this ~sf day of ~/`r~G at.
-2-
AN-0-3- IS37