C 0 P Y
ORG. FILE 8-26 AWARD N0.
3
CARRIER FILE R-13662 CASE N0. 3
NRAB FILE CL-$940
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 194
PARTIES The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
TO
DISPUTE St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the terms of the currently effective Agreement
between the parties in its treatment of J.,O. Sigman, Yard~Clerical employe, in
the Yale Yard Office at Memphis, Tennessee, when on July $, 1955, he was dismissed from service without just cause.
(2) J. 0. Sigman now be reinstated with all rights unimpaired and paid for
all time lost by reason of this unjust and arbitrary dismissal from service.
FINDINGS: Special Board of Adjustment No. 194, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds and holds:
The Carrier and Employes involved in this dispute are respectively
Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended.
This Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over this dispute.
Claimant was dismissed from service July 8, 1955, after investigation
held July 5, 1955, upon a charge in writing dated July 1, 1955, which read:
HPlease arrange to report to my office at 3:15 pm, Tuesday, July 5,
1955 for an investigation to develop the facts and determine your
responsibility, if any, account violating Rule 701 of the Transportation Book of Rules between 7 am and 8 am, June 20, 1955, resulting from profane remarks you allegedly made about a member
of the Memphis Grain and Hay Association when that firm requested
information relative to cars on the grain inspection tracks in the
Yale Yards. You may have a representative as specified by agreement rule, if one is desired.??
Rule 701 in the Book of Rules of the Transportation Department reads:
91701. Civil, mannerly deportment'is required of all employes
in their dealings with the public, their subordinates, and
each other. Boisterous, profane, or vulgar language is forbidden. Courtesy and attention to patrons is required . . .sv
rate a K
Award No. 3
Case No. 3
Effective January
6, 1957,
Claimant was awarded an annuity under Section 2(a)1
of the Railroad Retirement Act, as a consequence of which he is taken to have
resigned. The only portion of the claim before us therefore is the claim for
time lost in Item 2.
There is no dispute about the essential facts.
On June 20,
1955,
Claimant answered his telephone and, upon learning
that the call was for another clerk in the same room, set the receiver on his
desk with the line open and called across the room, 9tHere is the- - - grain
inspector again. I wish the - - - would call on the right phone,of using language
that constituted a plain infraction of the Rule. The grain inspector, having
been given Claimant's telephone number as the one to call, heard what Claimant
said about him and he felt affronted and aggrieved. Accordingly he reported
the episode to the Grain Association which in turn reported it to the Carrier.
Three or four times prior to the investigation the Carrier offered to
drop the investigation if~Claimant would apologize to the grain inspector but
Claimant refused to do so, although he did make such an apology on his own
volition some time after his dismissal. Thereafter in the course of handling
the Carrier made offers to reinstate without back pay, but Claimant refused
these offers also.
There was nothing unreasonable about requiring Claimant to apologize
to the grain inspector as a condition of dropping the investigation. His rejection of this offer leaves no proper basis for the time claim.
A IT A R D
Claim denied.
/s/ Hubert tlyekoff
Chairman
I dissent.
/s/ F. H. Wright
Gs/
T. P. Deaton
Employe Member Carrier Member
Dated at St. Louis, Missouri, November
14, 1957.
-2-