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.
Claimant- D'Costa was the Foreman of a gang, and on the day of the incident they were finishing a tie replacement on a siding. In the morning talk with the Roadmaster, Claimant said he needed 28 ties to comes the assignment. The ties were delivered at about 0815.
Claimant sought permission for an early quit which was agreed to by his Supervisor but the Supervisor, insisted the work was to be finished before the quit for the
By noon on this Friday, the only one of the gang left on the property was the Claimant
A Supervisor on Friday afternoon went to the worksite to inspect the work. He found seven to nine ties laying along the track beside the holes dug for the ties. The work obviously was not finished.
An Investigation was convened, and after the Investigation Claimant was assessed the discipline set out in the Statement of Claim; a 10-day record suspension and a one year probattion.
Claimant at first asked for 25 ties in the morning conference. During the work day Claimant asked for seven more ties . After the investigation, Claimant stated that after ordering the replacements; he realized that the seven ties he hard marked to exchange realty were solid enough and did not need to be replaced. He did not communicate this to his Supervisor or cams the additional replacement ties. He did dismiss his crew for the day.
The Board believes that the Claimant's assertion about the unneeded flies was a convenient explanation and that In reality his crew were merely rushing towards the noon hour, so they could go home. If the replacement ties were truly not needed, Claimant should have communicated this to his Supervisor at the outset, before dismissing his crew.
The Carrier did furnish sufficient evidence to support the charges filed and the Board supports the Findings of the Carrier in this instance.
Page 3
