SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 259
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS )
)
vs )
MEW YORK
CENTRAL RAILROAD, EASTERN DISTRICT )
(except Boston and Albany Division) and NEW )
YORK DISTRICT )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
:
1. Carrier violated the provisions of the agreement between the parties
when it entered a deferred suspension of 5 days against the record
of E. A. Clyne.
2. Carrier violated the provisions of the,agreement between the parties
when it suspended E. A. Clyne from work on his position as
Telephoner-Leverman, at SS SK, Sedgwick Avenue, on Sunday, March 9,
1958.
3. Carrier shall be required to clear the record of E. A. Clyne by removing the entry of the 5 day suspension, and compensate E. A. Clyne
in the amount of $9.52 for 4 hours' time consumed in attending the
hearing on March 10, 1958.
4. Carrier shall be required to compensate E. A. Clyne in the amount of
$19.04 for time lost on account of being suspended from work on
March 9, 1958.
OPINION OF BOARD
:
On Thursday, March 6, 1958 Claimant E. A. Clyne failed to report at SS-SK
as of the start of his tour of duty commencing at 11:30 P,N. Upon being advised
by the second trick employee at that location that he had-no relief, Carrier telephoned Claimant's house at 11:50 P.M. and received no answer. After waiting an
additional period for Claimant's appearance, Carrier assigned the nearest extra man
available to cover Claimant's position. Claimant Clyne reported by telephone at
12:35 A.M., over an hour after he was due on the job. He stated that he had been
delayed due to a flat tire and had been unable to get to a telephone. Carrier advised Claimant that he could not work that night since another employe had already
been directed to cover the position. Carrier also informed Claimant he was being
held out of service pending investigation. As a result of the hearing conducted
on March 10, a deferred suspension of five days was assessed against Claimant's
record for violation of Rule 702 (re reporting for duty at the required time). The
one day suspension due to being held out of service was allowed to stand.
AWARD N0. 8
Case No. 8
Upon the basis of the record in this case, we are of the opinion that
Carrier was justified in imposing the five day deferred suspension. The charge
against Claimant was not of such a serious nature as to warrant a suspension from
duty pending investigation, however. While the Agreement provides that an employe may be held out of service pending investigation, we find that Carrier's
action in doing so in this instance was an abuse of discretion. Thus Claimant
is entitled to be compensated for time lost in the amount of one day at pro rata
rate. The five day deferred suspension must be allowed to stand. Since
Claimant's guilt was established as a result of the hearing on March 10, there
is no basis for granting his request for reimbursement for time spent at said
hearing.
AWARD:
Parts 1 and 3 of claim denied. Parts 2 and 4 of claim sustained.
/s/ Lloyd H. Bailer
Lloyd H. Bailer, Chairman
/s/ R. J. Woodman /s/ Chas. N. Faris
R. J. Woodman, Employee Member Chas. N. Faris, Carrier Member
New York, New York
December 19, 1958.
-2-