PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3775
r~amnwwsrwrwwrrwwwrrywrr~»wr~w~rsmo
TRANSPGATATION COMMUNICATIONS t
INTERNATIONAL UNION t
"organization" Case No. 79
Vs.
: Award No. 79
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
"Carrier" s
i
i
-..---....o.--------..--....--....-..-------------
ST'8TE
NT QF CLAIM
Claim of the System Committee of the TCU (CX-484-n) that:
(a) Carrier acted in
an
arbitrary and capricious manner
when it refused to grant Claimant P. A. DeAngelis
request. of Novomuer 28, 1989, for an Unjust Treatment
Hearing.
(b) Carrier violated
Rules 42, 43
and
44 of
the Rules
Agreement when it tailed toe
(1) Schedule the Unjust Treatment
Investigation
within
10 calendar
days
of
the date November 28, 1989 arid;
(2) When the Manager-Labor Relations failed to grant
the hearing on appeal within 10 calendar days from
receipt of appeal.
(o) In
order to resolve this dispute, such Unjust
Treatment Hearing should be accorded Claimant
DeAngelis.
QP, IHION OZ
THE EOARD
8y letter dated November 15, 1989, the former wife of the
Claimant, who is also an employe, and married to a third Carrier
employe, informed the carrier of issues that were disrupting
Carrier's operations at the Materials Department in Selkirk, Now
York. On November 20, 1989, local management met with, the
3-2?s-~g
Claimant ahd the husband (W. A. Phillips) to discern the
circumstances of the situation. 2n a letter dated November 28,
1989,
Clklmani- da~aflad six occasions of misconduct toward him by
fellow employe Phillips and requested an unjust treatment hearing
pursuant to
Ruin 44.
Carrier denied the request.
Rule 44, states as follows:
An employee who considers himself unjustly treated,
otherwise than covered by those rules, shall have the
same right of investigation, hearing or appeal and
representation as provided in Rules 42 and 43, if
written request which sets forth the employee's
complaint is made to his supervisor within thirty (30)
calendar days of cause of complaint.
The Organization contends that Claimant is entitled to an
unjust treatment hearing pursuant to Rule
44.
The organization
argues that Carrier is historically reluctant to provide such
hearings, and must be required to do so in this case.
Carrier
contends that
a
Rule 44
hearing is not required in a
situation such as this, which involves personal conflict between
employes and not action by the Carrier. Furthermore, Carrier
notes that Claimant was afforded an opportunity to discuss the
situation with management.
The Hoard has determined that the claim must be denied.
An examination of Claimant's November 28, 1989 letter
clearly attributes the actions complained of to a co-worker and
alleges no unjust treatment on the part of the Carrier. Clearly,
Rule 44 is intended to apply to Carrier/Employe disputes, not
those between employees. While it is true that Claimant heard
indirectly that a carrier supervisor had made derogatory comments
2
3?-75 -? 9
about hit, n0 action of Carrier
was based upon these
comments.
Furthermore, the alleged
comments were made in an informal
fashion,
and
when claimant confronted the supervisor informally,
he denied making them. In addition, it is apparent that
Claimant's main dispute is not with Carrier, but rather with
individuals concerning a domestic situation. In these
circumstances, Carrier was not obligated to provide an unjust
treatment hearing for an essentially private dispute.
Claim denied.
J . Q C . H . BROCKETT
C rier Member Organization Member
S. E. $UCHHSIT
Neutral Member
3
:3'~^
5',y.