. PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3542

Parties to the Dispute

Pennsylvania Federation Brotherhood of

Maintenance of Way Employes


Consolidated Rail Corporation

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

(a) That S. Turner, Foreman, be restored to service with seniority and all other privileges and benefits that are a condition of employment either by agreement or practice. That he be compensated for all time lost from the time dismissed from all service of the Carrier.

(b) That his record be cleared of all charges brought against him by the Carrier.

OPINION OF THE BOARD



Pennsylvania. On October 213, 1981,he was notified to appear at a

hearing on Nov=tuber 6, 1981 to answer the EoLlowing charges:



Violation of Rut(! D of the Rules of the Transportation Department during your tour oC duty on October 23, 19131.

Case No. 26 Award No. 9






A hearing into the charges was held on November 6, 1981. Claimant was not in attendance. The Organization contends that Claimant never received the notice of hearing. -The record reveals, however, that on November 4, 1981, Claimant was aware of the hearin3 date of November 6, 1981. Prior to and during the hearing, the Organization requested that the hearing be postponed in order for the Organization representative to locate Claimant and find out why he did not appear. This request was denied and the hearing was held as scheduled without Claimant in attendance. As a result of that hearing, Claimant was found guilty as charged and dismissed from Carrier's service.
This Board has carefully reviewed tho record of this cnse'and must conclude that Carrier acted in a harsh and unnecessarily one-sided manner when it denied the Organization's representatives -a postponement of the November 6, 1981, hearin__ at which Claimant was not in atteralance. It would like to -point out that in the strictest

and most technical sense of the work, Carrier had a right to proceed -

and no rule violation too!: place. Sound Libor relations, however,


would dictate that a postponement be granted.

      This Board will be fir more crit:icaL of "hurry-up" hr=arin~s in

                                            PLB No. 3542 Case No. 26 Award No. 9


the future than it has been in this case. Under the Railway Labor Act, Carrier is granted the right to hold disciplinary hearings. It is responsible for ensuring objectivity in the hearing and establishing procedures that will be followed. Given this unique system and the fact that Carrier controls the trial of employes it has charged, it has a responsibility to make sure that the hearing is fair and that all elements of due process are guaranteed to the Claimant. The hearing must be technically fair, in accordance with the Agreement, and must have the appearance -of fairness even to the most unsophisticated observer. The hearing in the instant case fell short of that obligation.
As to the merits of the case, there is no question that Claimant was sleeping on duty. This Board is fully aware that sleeping on the job is a major offense and that it is d=serving of serious discipline. In every case, however, it is not deserving or i:laediate dismissal from service. It is the opinion of this Board that Carrier can male its point with a suspension equal to the time Claimant has been held out of service. The WPM is d!roctin, thnr_ Claimant be returned to work with seniority intact- but withuut pay fur lost time or benefits. Claimant should be aware that any future behavior of this type will most certuinly result in his parm2nent dismissal (rain service.
                                      PG,3 //o - 3 y' ~w/J Nb~


                AW aRD


Claimant shall within 30 days of the adoption of this award be returned to service per opinion of the Board.

R. E. Dennis, Neutral Member

J Dodd, rmplol·e Member '. . 'Vclil, Carrier Member