PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2960
AWARD NO. 110
CASE N0. 145
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
and
Chicago & North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the SysteComuaittee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The ten (10) day suspension assessed Assistant Foreman
J. 0. Stanford for his alleged absence from duty July 12,
1984 was without just and sufficient cause and in
violation of the Agreement. (Organization File 90-4714;
Carrier File 81-84-235-D).
(2) Claimant J. 0. Stanford shall be allowed the remedy
prescribed in Rule 19(d).
OPINION OF THE BOARD
This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence,
finds and holds that the Employe and Carrier involved in this
dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of
the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
At the outset, the Organization maces a procedural argument.
They ar-yue that Rule 19(A) was violated since the hearing was
unilaterally postponed. It is clear enough from the language of
the rule, and from interpretations of the relevant portion of Rule
PLB-2960 Award No. 110
19(A), that the Carrier cannot unilaterally postpone a hearing.
The rule requires either party desiring a postponement to "request"
it. The assessment of the contention that there was no "request",
requires a detailed review of the facts.
The Carrier originally, in a letter dated
July 13,
1984, set
the hearing for
July 20,
1984. The officer who originally set the
hearing indicated that subsequent to the original letter of
July
13,
he became aware that one of the key witnesses was going to be
on vacation. He then directed a clerk to contact the Union representative regarding a postponement; possibly to sometime during the
week of
July 30.
Instead, the clerk -- on
July 17
-- simply wrote
the Union representative postponing the hearing until
July 30.
The
next day, the Union representative, without knowing the postponement notice was in the mail, contacted the clerk, and was informed
of the postponement. He took.exception to this, and the next day
(July
19) called the officer involved --,apparently to discuss the
situation. In the course of the conversation, they agreed to a
postponement until August
2.
After considering the facts as a whole, it is the opinion of
the Board that under these unique circumstances, no violation of
Rule 19(A) occurred. The Parties agreed to a postponement prior ',-,o
the time the Union received written notice prepared by the clerk.
With respect to the merits, it is noted that discipline before
the Board relates to an alleged violation of Rule 14, which sates:
"Employes must report for duty at the designated time and
place. They must be alert, attentive and devote themselves
exclusively to the Company's service while on duty. They
must not absent themselves from duty, exchange duties with
or substitute others in their place, without proper
authority."
- 2 -
PLB-2960 Award No. 110
Applying the facts to Rule 14, the Board must conclude that
the record contains substantial evidence that the Claimant was, in
fact, in violation of the rule. The rule, based on a reasonable
reading, at a minimum requires that an employe report at the designated time and place, and if they cannot, to give the Carrier as
much advance notice as soon as possible.
In this case, the Claimant did not report until 7:15 a.m. -fifteen minutes after his starting time. Ploreover, there is no
evidence that it was impossible for the Claimant to have notified
the Carrier he was going to be tardy.
In view of the foregoing, the Claim is denied
AWARD
The Claim is denied.
Gil Vernon, Chairman -
H. .~'Harper, Emp oyT me~ber . i n, arrier t·emner
Dated: t ,,,.,~
/Cl/(f'-
J
_3_