P UL~IL-C LAW '?'.RD t,'0 . '.8 W4










"(2) R.oadws_y Equipment Foreman D. Miller be paid for all tLue lost because
 of violation referred to within Part (1) o--'* this clam." -
 OPIN-T-ON OF BU PD;
 Claimant is employed as a Roadway Bquipment Foreman on Carr ier·: Iowa Mvision. Daring his six years of employment he has a proven history of autonobi'l.e accidents, personal injuries, and traffic citations, some of which.have occurred in Company vehicles. Hg has served several disciplinary suspensions for his responsibility in connection with the accidents in Company vehicles. Follow Int; the most recent accident he was given verbal orders not to drive any Company vehicle without permission from Office Engineer J. E. Trotter. , There, is no doubt on this record 'hat this restriction teas communicated to Claimant and acknowledged

 try him.
 On April 19,, 1977' i4hile working on the road between Des :Minas? Iowa, and Leavenworth, Kansas., Claimant was requested by Roadway Equipment Mechanic J. E. Drawn to take over the driving of a Company vehicle. Claimant did so and
 within minutes he was stopped by a police officer anal issued a citation for driv
 ing 70 miles per hour in a ,55- a per-hour zone through Wbrth County, Iissouri.
 Claimant did not inform his employer about the ticket, he did not appear in Court
 nor did he pay the fine. Claimant just ignored the traffic citation and on
 August 24. 1977, Carrier was notified by the Sheriff of 111orth County, ?-~.issouri s
 that a. warrant had been issued for Claimantf s arrest. Thereafter, under date of
 August 30, 1977, Carrier served notice upon Claimant to appear .for an investigation
 into the following charges

"Your responnibility in connection with you.. unauthorized use of
 Company vehicle and speeding violation at 'U.S. 169 and Route F in
 Worth County, Ydssouri on April 19,, 1977, for which you are charged
 with violation of Rules ?, 8 and 18 of the General Regmi.ations and
 Safety Rules,, effective June 1, 1967. rr
 The original )yotice of Investigation was dated August 30, 19777, and set
 down a hearing date cf September 2, 1977. Contained in the same envelope with the
 fbtice of Hearing., howeverv eras a I1otice of Postponement, also dated August 30,
 1977., and setting adjourned hearing date of September 13, 1977. It is not dis
 puted. that Carrier postponed the original scheduled hearing because certain
 essential Carrier iritnesses had calendar conflicts and could not be available on
 September 2, 1977. Subsequently the Organization requested several postponements,
 al? of which were granted by Carrier. The hearing commenced on October 26, 1977,
 but again was adjourned and concluded on 1bveuber 14, 1977, because Claimant's wit
 ness was not present on the earlier date..
 At the outset of the hems the following exchange occurred between .
 then General Chairman Zimmerman and Hearing Officer Wearmouth:
 erStatement by hr. Zimmerman

 "Mr. Wearmouth., as you read the: charge against Mfr. Killer and notification and the postpozxements~, the notice of the investigation dated August 30 and the postponement was dated August 30 was received in my office., September l.. 3.977 At no ties<e was I contacted or Vice Chairman Jorde contacted for the postponement of this investigation and according
 i ~

            to Rule 19 it must be by mutual agreement either by the carrier or myself .for the postponement and, therefore, I could not concur to this postponement so this investigation will be under protest. "Statement by Mr. Wearnouth


            "Mr. Zimmerman, your protest will be noted under .Ruae 19, as it states in there the investigation will be postponed for good and sufficient reasons upon request by either party, which I'm sure. with some of the problems ire have been hate would have been. "Statent b Mr. Zimmerman "I Ti.now that Vice Chairman Jorde and myself were available. "Steterzent burr >xr. Wearmouth

    "I realize that,, but with the problems bye have been having and e.

    good number of investigations, I'm sure that it would not be post

    poned without good sufficient reason so ire will record your protest

    and go on with s hearing."

    The hearing proceeded, and on the basis of evidence adduced anti his

    prior disciplinary record, Claimant was assessed a twenty--day suspension without

    pay. T`n3.s activated a ten--day deferred suspension which was pending .from his prior

    automobile accidents so that Claimant actually served s thirty-day- suspension.

    the instant claim mounts no serious challenge to the sufficiency of the

    evidence nor the appropriateness of the penalty imposed. Indeed, were thosa tae

    only issues we would deny the cleim. But the claim comes to us on the procedural/

    jurisdictional complaint that Carrier violated Rule 19 ta) which reads: in pertinent

    part as follows:

    IlThe investigation will. be postponed for good and sufficient reasons on request of either party." The crux of this elaim,as presented and pursued on the property, is that Carrier did not "request" but rather just unilaterally presumed to postpone the hearing originally scheduled for September 2, 1977. On the property Carriee defended against that complaint by asserting that there were "good and sufficient reasonst' for postponement, and also by pointing out that the Organization requested and was

granted several postponements by Car---' lor before the hearing actually teas held.
 ! t our hearing Carrier asserted for the first time that then Vice Chair-man jorde
 eras "told" about the ne: essity of a postponement prior to August 30,, 1977. The
 Organiuation articulated its objection regarding that postponement on the record
 at the hearing and pursued this objection diligently on the property. At no .
 time prrior to our Board Hems did Carrier raise this latter defense. It cores
 too late not to box legitimately raised and considered.
 There is no doubt on this record concerning the "good anal sufficient reauso= 9 why Carrier wanted a postponement. The only question is whether Carrier corDlied with the clear contractual requirement that it "request" such postpone= anent from the other party to that agreement. 1b "tell" is not the sane' as to "request." We must assure that the parties to the ,Agreement knew the meaning of the words which they used. Irrespective of the bona fides or the justification for a postponement, Carrier violated Rile l9(a) when instead of requesting a postponement it unilaterally granted itself a ~ postponement and merely in,sd the Organization of that fait accompli. It should be noted that each party is required to grant the other a postponement under .Rule 19{a} when requested to do so for good and sufficient reasons. If Carrier had .requested that particular positponement and the Organization had refused., tae would have a different case. But Carrier's fatal error herein eras in failing altogether to make the request and in acting unilaterally.
 Nor in the final analysis is it really relevant that Carriier subsequently granted sever,. requests from the Organization for postponements. Such considerations go to questions of equity and comity; whereas we are called urpon here try intexpret clear and unambiguous contract languages Perhaps the result does not seen "fair" or a layman might deem that the "guilty party" has been
 petted to escape through a technical "loophole." However,, we do not sit
 to ease our ou-n particular brand of justice. Father., we are requested
 to interpret the contract before us anal where it is clear tie have no alter
 native but to enforce it as it is written. See Award 3-11757.

 Public Law Board 2b. 1844, upon the whole record and alb.. of the evidence, fond holds as follows t
                                                    .


1. "Chat they Carrier and Employee involved in this dispute axe.. res
 pectivelyo Carrier and Daploree with; n the meaning of the Railway Labor Act;
        2. that the Board has Jurisdiction aver the dispute involved herein;


and
hat the Agreement, eras violated.
The claim is sussed to the extent indicated in the Opinion. Carrier °i s directed to comply with this Award within try days of issuance.
Dana E. Eischen., Chairman

 b. O. Harper., loyefezlher

 Datedt ~
Fi. W. Schzieges Cart ierJliember