Case No. 331 PARTIES TO DiSpUTE:(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board Is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
The Carrier has a Vehicle Services Department that on an annual basis validates the driving license of each of its employees who are or could be a driver of a Carrier vehicle. Those whose names appear on the list indicate whether the individual's license has been suspended or revoked. Claimant's name appeared on that list as having been revoked. In checking with his Supervisor, Claimant had never advised him that he could
Ptr (3 N o · 5 sS'u bOn February 11, 2008, the Carrier wrote Claimant advising an Investigation was being Convened:
Following the investigation, Claimant was advised his services with the Carrier were terminated.
Before discussing the merits of this case, the Organization has challenged tha validity of the Investigation that it was not timely held. The Employees cited Rule 14. To this Board, Rule 14 does not refer to when an investigation must be held, The challenge is denied.
Regarding the merits, It is somewhat a jumble of facts. The Carrier cited Claimant for not notifying his Supervisor that his license was revoked and he was still driving a Carrier vehicle while he was without a valid license. This is a serious violation. Claimant in his own defense claims he was never notified of the suspension, and when he was notified, he immediately paid the outstanding fines for various traffic violations that were the cause of his license suspension. His license was not suspended or revoked because of the number of traffic tickets he had that were outstanding, but simply because he did not pay them.
PL3It is admitted by this Board that there exists a form tatter Claimant had showing his license was not suspended. He did advise the Motor Vehicle Department that he paid all the outstanding tickets and had a form from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles that he had a clear record. However, the Representative of that Department, upon receipt of the copies of Claimant's payments, again checked his driving record and found it still listed Claimant's driver's licensees being suspended.
Claimant did possess a driver's license, but It is not uncommon under the circumstances to have the license In his possession even though it was suspended. If he had been stopped for a traffic violation, a run of his license would have reflected suspended or revoked and there would have been an additional charge at that time. In toot, he would not have been allowed to continue driving and the vehicle he was driving would have boon Impounded.
The violation Is serious. The Carrier's decision to terminate Claimant's services, when considering the termination coupled with his record, Is not unduly harsh.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute idantNied above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made,