BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTEISANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

and

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY


STATEMENT OF CIAIM:












FINDINGS :

Special Board of Adjustment No. 313, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon and upon the whole record and a71 the evidence, finds and holds:

The carrier and employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Iabor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.



Claimant was notifed of his discharge by letter dated August 28, 1958. Rule 40(a) provides for a hearing in such matters if timely request is made by the employee or the organization.








To this date, neither the claimant nor the organization has requested a hearing on the matter. They have not followed the provided procedures under the contract for obtaining relief. Although the organization was at all times free to act, admittedly the claimant, being in jail, was under some handicap in pursuing his rights, but the contract makes no exceptions in such situations, neither does it give adjustment boards and referees authority to make exceptions or to perform acts of grace.

This is sufficient to dispose of the claim but another argument of the organization should be answered, namely, that claimant was eventually acquitted of all the same charges in a court of law.

It is well settled that the carrier in discipline and discharge matters may act upon facts as it finds them to be. It is not bound by what any courts of law determine to be an offense or no offense, what civil authorities do or refrain from doing in prosecuting an alleged offense, although findings of a court or jury may have probative value. Acquittals in courts of law may be erroneous depending upon many things, for example, definitions of crimes, lack of prosecution, press of more important matters, inept prosecution, weakness of witnesses, absence of witnesses, perjury or exclusionary rules of evidence. Enforcement of the carrier's rules is not necessarily predicated upon disposition of cases in courts of law.



Collective Labor Agreements, 95 ALR 10; Buberl v. Southern Pacific Co., 94 F. Supp. 11 (N.D. Calif. 1950); Bailey v. Nashville C. and S. L. Ry., 60 Ga. App. 142, 3 SE 2d 112 (1939); Torgensen v. Penn. R. R. Co., 138 A. 2d 24 (ICJ. 1958); Third Division Awards 2166 (no referee); 2470 (Referee St. Clair Smith); 6010 Referee Messmore); 8843 (Referee F. B. Murphy); First Division Awards 15577 Referee Mabry), 14274 (no referee); and 13355 (Referee Munro).

The claim must be dismissed for the reason that claimant and the organization have never asked for a hearing or timely pursued their rights under the contract.

AWARD :




                                (s) Marion Beatty

                            Marion Beatty, Chairman


                                (s~ J. Cunningham

                            A. J. Cunningham, Organization Member


Omaha, Nebraska (a) A. D. Hanson
November 21, 1960 A. D. Hanson, Carrier Member