The Board, after hearing upon the,.whole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee ,vit'~.in the meaning of the Railway Labor Act. as amended; this Board has jurisdiction over ;he dispute involved herein; and, the parties were given due notice of hearing hereon.
The disciplinary suspension here at issue arises from charges and a Carrier finding that the Claimant was responsible for a failure to report for work on time and thereby an unnecessary delay to his train assignment.
On June =1, 1993. the Claimant was --lie Engineer for Train Assignment ?31='2-O4, With a report for and on duty time of 5:00 A.M. at Hartland, Ohio, where both the Claimant and his Conductor were to be transposed by tai to Brewster. Ohio, to take charge of their train. The Claimant did not arrive at Hartland until about d:3d or 5:40 A.M.. or 35 to 40 minutes past the time he was scheduled to =o on duty. This, the Carrier urges, caused a delay in the departure of the crew from Hartland and a delay in the crew taking charge of their train at Brewster.
While the Claimant admits that he overslent it must also be considered that after showing up at Hartland that the Claimant arid his Conductor taxied to an intermediate point. namely, Ashland. Ohio. as in the normal course of handling crews, waited for some 30 minutes for another cab to take hern to Brewster. and that upon arriving at the latter location were confronted by a supe-isor: official who, after chidins7 the Claimant for being late, then proceeded to remove =rig Claimant from service pending an investigation.
Followinz the cornpary :nvesti=at::~r.. woca was held on June Id. 1995, the Claimant was notified by letter dated juiv ;. : ~'='3 :':,at he was determined guilty of violatir_,-7 certain operating rules ai:d -ss. ,_- .: _,_ -_ .... -.-. ..._ ;C,m e: .;:ne air,-ad" geld gut .: Se·-..~_
As the Organization urges. we do not find the particular circumstances of record to have given rise for the Claimant to have been adjudged as having committed a serious offense mandating that he be held out of service pending investigation. Article 19(b)(1) prescribes that engineers will not be %%vithheld from service pending investigation except when a serious act or occurrence a involved. i.e., Rule "G", Insubordination, Extreme Negligence. or Dishonesty. Further. .greed-i=pon Question and Answer Nio. 1 to Article 19 defines Extreme N-eali~aence as `;!lows:
The Board also finds worthy of note ax-g=ent that since the Claimant and his Conductor had to wait 20 minutes for the tax:;.ac from Brewster to arrive at Ashland that even had the Claifnant been on time for the ca: ade romHartland to Ashland, that they would only have had to wait at Ashland that much longer. Thus, it is urged, that the real cause for any delay was poor taxicab ser:ice.
It being obvious to the Board that it was not necessarily the Claimant's tardiness in reporting for dutv that was responsible for a delay to any train service; and that the Carrier was remiss in withholding ::,I- Claimant from service pending an investigation for what appears to have been other than an offense subject to such action in application of Article 19, and, further, the Clai:ant zavina a heretofore clear record, we find that an affirmative award is warranted. Acccrdinz!y. The claim will be sustained.
Reoeri E. Peterson
C:~a:: ?- Neutral -Member