SEAWARD COAST LINE RAILROAD OO , -

 vs.

 U1IITEED TRANSPORTATION UNION (B) -

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM : Claim of Engineman Cameron MeNaill for clear record
 with pay for days suspended July 21, to August 4,
 Rule G-1 relating to disloyalty, Kay 12, 1978.
 FIIPJING9 , On May 11, 1978, Claimant McNeill, BTU Local Chairman, requested
 that ha be permitted to mark off for handling Union business, and per
 mission was granted. On the previous day,, a grade crossing accident
 occurred at BreoP Straw Crossing at Lane, South Carolina. Two railroad
 employees were killed, and Fireman John C. Fisher, a constituent of
 Claimant's, Bras Injured. Fisher was hospitalized, and he requested
 that Claimant obtain the services of the approved legal counsel for the
 UTU for his representation in connection with anticipated claims for
 damages.
 On May 31, 1978, Iacal Charm=^ McNeill was cited to formal investigatIon on June 2 following "to develop the facts and place your responsibility for participating in activities inimical to the best interest of this Company in transporting and assisting investigator from the Lax Firm of ... who was observed on coapaew property at Lane, S, C_ on May 12, 1978, You are charged with marking off under false pretenses on may LL, 198, and the possible violation of that part or Rule G-1 dealing with disloyalty and Rule 708."
 Discipline letter was issued on June 23, 1978, and read in essential parts

 PLH No. 2143
 Award No. 73
 Page 2


The sustaining decision rendered by the learned Chairman and Neutral in Award No. 73 of Public taw Board No. 2143, involving Intel theirman Cameron McNeill. is of great concern to Carrier, not because of the moneary sapecm, instsads the ominous significance for future actions by Local Chairse:n and the impressions they will gain, to-wit: that they will have absolute license to perform disloyal acts inimical to their employees' interests:
 Carrier does not question the local Chairman's right to mark off and assist his union members in legitimate union business, however, we cannot agree for on moment that the actions of the local union officers in assisting tmepaasers to enter our property for the purpose of gathering information to use in a suit against Carrier, transcends the limits of Carrier's operating Rules applicable to "disloyalty" to an employer who pays his wages and upon whom his livelihood depends. If such actions by the Local Chairman transcend Carrier's rule regarding disloyalty, then who is to say, or prevent, iacal Chalm"en and others from "stretching" that desire to be nursemaid, counselor, advocate and friend to other mom serious areas, or be excessively bold in cases such as that involved in Award No. 737
 Claimant YcNe111 admitted during the formal investigation held in this particular case that ha "offered his services" to the law firm of Beckham, lfcAliley and Promote of Miami, Florida; that he voluntarily met an investigator, representing that law firm, at the Charleston Airport, transported him to lane, S. C·, for the purpose of aiding and abetting him in
 PLR no. 2143
 Award No. 'f3
 Page 3

 is at times nursemaid, counselor, advocate and friend to his members. As long as he does not violate agreement rules or the law in wearing these hats he is not "disloyal" to his employer. Certainly Mr. McNeill was not.

 AWARD: Claim sustained. Carrier shall make this award effective within 30 days from date hereof.


R. i. CHRISTIAN, Carrier Member R. L, cCOLLUM, organization member
 D:SSenf' a7faehad -

 June 72, 3979

PUBLIC IAIi BARD NO. 2143

5£ABOARD CAST LINE RAILROAD CCtipAPT!

AND

UNTTEO TRANSPORTATION UNION (E)



Carrier DISsent-AUard 73

Public Law Hoard No. 2143 PLG i~ N 3n

Page 2 A ujQ. rd ~3


trespassing on Company property, thereby assisting the investigator in the progression of possible legal action, hostile and adverse, to the best interests of this Company, Claimant's employer. Carrier clearly understands that Mr. McNeill has every right to assist ono of his members in securing the services of legat counsel, however, we hold firm to our position that he does not have the right to accompany employees of legal counsel to the Company's property and engage in activities detrimental to its interest. To do so is being patently disloyal. Mr. McNeill realised that fact, otherwise he would have been an the crossing with the investigator.
 In the ounce clan of its submission to Public law Heard No. 2143, Carrier atattd: 'While Claimant obtained permission to be off for the ostensible reason of performing 'union business', it ahould be obvious that the union's business in not or should not be to foster suits against the Railrwd." Cur position remains unchanged, although its true meaning use apparently lost at time of presentation.
 There were no procedural errors to be considered is rendering the decision to this use, nor was the discipline assessed harsh or unreasonable. The wearing of 'Ssny hats" by the union local Chairman did net place him' outside the ambit of Carrier's Operating Rules.




      i