,
Award No. 173
Case No. 173
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2439
PART-I-ES Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)
DISPUTE: and
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Carrier's decision to dismiss Trackman, [:, V.
Garcia, without first the benefits of a fair and inlltartial
investigation, was in violation of the provisions Of the
current Agreement. Said action being arbitrary, capricious,
and in abuse of discretion.
2. The Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Claimant to
his former position with seniority and all other rights
restored unimpaired, with compensation for all wage loss
suffered.
FINDINGS - -
Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the liarties herein are
Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,
and that this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89_456 and has
jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
Claimant had been employed by Carrier in 1974. He had baPit dismissed by
Carrier in 1987 for violation of Rule 604, being absent without 111-oiler authority.
This dismissal ultimately was progressed to this Board in Case N,3, 147, resulting
in Award No. 147, dated January 10, 1989. That Award sustainu,l the claim, and
Claimant was returned to service with all rights unimpaired anti received pay for
wages lost in the amount of over $22,000. In accordance with (hat Award, by
2
letter dated January 12, 1989, Claimant was instructed to report to Carrier's
/ property to discuss his reinstatement and also was scheduled to complete a return- -
to-duty physical examination on January 17, 1989, prior to returning to duty. By
letter dated January 30, 1989, Claimant was informed that he was reinstated to
service in accordance with the Award indicated, but at the same time he would
remain dismissed due to the hearing, which was conducted on May 24, 1988 (to be
discussed hereinafter), which established his responsibility for being charged and
sentenced for possessing and/or selling cocaine in violation of Rule G.
Petitioner takes the position that Claimant could not be dismissed a second time
while he was in a dismissed status due to his earlier dismissal (Award No. 147).
In addition, the Organization insists that these was no attempt made to notify
Claimant of the investigation, which was held on May 24, 1988, and at which he
did not appear. Carrier believes that it was eminently justified in terminating
Claimant, under all those circumstances and the hearing was properly conducted.
Furthermore, Carrier maintains that Claimant was in a relationship with Carrier
during the pendency of his earlier dismissal case, and therefore was subject to
discipline as indicated in this dispute. Carrier also points out that according to the
testimony in the hearing, Claimant plead "nolo contendere" which is in effect a
plea of guilty to the charge of possession or sale of cocaine. He was sentenced top years probation and 10 months in the furlough program, according to Carrier,
and also had to register as a narcotics offender, under the State statute. For that
reason Carrier believes that he was clearly in violation of Carrier's Rule G, and
was properly dismissed.
First, with respect to Claimant's status. It has long been held that an employee
whose dismissal is subject to appeal which has not been resolved retains a
relationship as an employee with Carrier. Therefore, in this situation Carrier was
3
riot incorrect or else Carrier was correct in its determination that it needed to
discipline Claimant for what appeared to be a grievous case of misconduct. There
is no doubt but that the hearing was properly conducted since there was evidence
at the hearing that Claimant was notified of the hearing and simply did not
appear, even though the notification was perfected. Under all the circumstances,
and in view of the nature of the offense, which Claimant admitted by his guilty
plea, Carrier was within its rights in dismissing Claimant. He did not attempt to
avail himself of Carrier's Employee Assistance Program, as a first-time offender
may well have done. In any event, it is apparent that there was a violation of
Carrier's rules by Claimant, which could not go unnoticed, and therefore Carrier
was justified in his dismissal.
AWARD
Claim denied.
LM, Lieberman, Neutral- Chairman
Employee Member
KIL.
Joyner
Carrier Member
San Francisco, California
March
3 6
, 1993