PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO_ 4447
PARTIES CHICAGO :1.\D NORTH WESTERN
)
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY ) -
AWARD N0. 4
TO AND )
CASE N0. 3
UNITED TRANSPORTATION )
DISPUTE UNION )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of Fireman R. E. Hockett, Eastern Division, for
reinstatement to the services of the Chicago and North
Western Transportation Company, with vacation and seniority
rights unimpaired, in addition to the payment of any
and all health and welfare benefits-until reinstated,
and that he be compensated for any and all lost time,
including time spent attending an investigation held on (sic)
when charged with an alleged responsibility for violation
of Rule G while you were employed as a trainman on
SECSV on duty at 9:05 AM on April 12,
1987.
HISTORY OF DISPUTE:
On April 12, 1987 Claimant was working as a brakeman on Train
SECSV. As the train approached an improperly aligned switch Claimant was
riding the right front steps of the lead locomotive and the Engineer and
Conductor were in the cab. Claimant signaled the Engineer to stop. However,
the Engineer was distracted and did not see Claimant's signal. Claimant
detrained and ran toward the switch in an effort to align it properly.
However, the train ran through the switch before Claimant could reach it.
The Carrier required Claimant, the Engineer and Conductor to
submit to urinalyses. The employees also requested and received blood
tests. The urine and the blood samples were sent to Compuchem Laboratory
for analysis. Claimant's urinalysis tested positive for cannaboids in the
amount of 25 nanograms. Any level above 20 nanograms confirms the recent
use of marijuana.
L44LI'7-
After receiving the results of Claimants urinalysis but before_.
receiving the results of Claimant's blood test the_Carrier-notified Claimant
to appear for formal investigation on the charge that he had violated Rule G.
After the investigation the Carrier notified Claimant that he had been foun'!
guilty of the charge and was discharged from the Carrier's service effective
May 18, 1987.
On June 17, 1987 the Carrier received the results of Claimant's
blood test. The test showed positive for marijuana.
The Organization grieved the discipline. The Carrier denied the
grievance. The Organization appealed the denial to the highest officer of
the Carrier designated to handle such disputes. However,the dispute remains
unresolved, and it is before this Board for final and binding determination.
FINDINGS:
The Board upon the whole record and all the evidence finds that
the employees and the Carrier are employees and Carrier within the meaning
of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C. §$151 et seg. - The Board
also finds it has jurisdiction to decide the dispute in this case. The
Board further finds that the parties to the dispute, including Claimant,
were given due notice of the hearing in this case.
The Organization maintains that the Carrier denied Claimant a
fair and impartial investigation because it prejudged his guilt. In support
of that allegation the Organization points to testimony by Claimant's mother
that on April 21, 1987 she was informed by telephone by her husband, who is
a Carrier official, that he had been told by Vice President and Division
_ 3 _
Manager J. H. Koch that Claimant would be taken out of service and discharged
for use of marijuana. Claimant's wife also testified at the investigation
that she overheard a telephone conversation apparently between Claimant and
his father in which the father stated substantially the same thing to Claimant
as he had stated to Claimant's mother. Claimant confirmed the substance of
the latter conversation. No other witnesses who testified at the investigation
controverted Claimant's testimony or that of his wife or mother with respect -
to this point.
By letter of August 13, 1987 Vice President Koch denied that he had
any conversation with Claimant's father of the nature testified to by Claimant,
his wife and mother and enclosed a handwritten letter to Koch purportedly
from Claimant's father dated July 17, 1987 stating that within the previous
five years there had been no
conversation or
discussion between Koch and
Claimant's father concerning Claimant's employment. Vice President Koch did
state in his letter that at the.time Claimant was removed from service Koch
had instructed a staff member to inform Claimant's father of that fact in
order to minimize embarrassment to him.
Claimant's testimony and that of his mother and his wife stands
unrefuted. In the face of that testimony the hearing officer should have
called either Claimant's father or Vice President
Koch or
both as witnesses
to testify with respect to the alleged conversation. The Carrier may not
be permitted to change the record subsequent to close of the investigation
by self-serving denials from Vice
President Koch
buttressed by a letter
purportedly from Claimant's father which Koch was in a position to obtain
through duress. Neither Claimant nor his representative had any opportunity
,tqu-7-q
_ t, _
to cross examine Vice President Koch or Claimant's father with respect to
this issue.
Accordingly, we must conclude that the Organization's point is
well taken that the Carrier prejudged Claimant's guilt. We understand that
the Carrier would be tempted to do so in the face of the results of Claimant's
urinalysis. However, it is fundamental to the investigative processin the
railroad industry that the Carrier refrain from reaching conclusions with
respect to guilt until all relevant evidence
is
adduced by the investigation.
Apparently, the Carrier failed to observe the rule in this case.
AWARD
Claim sustained. -
Pay for time out of service shall be made in accordance with
Award No. 1of this Board.
The Carrier shall make this award effective forthwith.
7
William E. Fredenberger, J
Chairman and Neutral Member
M.
Al
I
YIM - -
Humphrey ~` Donald F. Markgraf
Carrier Member Employee Member
DATED: