Form
1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award No.
7137
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
6848
2-BRCofC-F&0-'76
`!`he Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dana E. Eiachen when award was rendered.
(International Bratherhood of Firemen and Oilers
of System Federation
1'?0:
6~ - Railway
Employee'
Parties to Dispute: Department, AFL-CIO
The Belt Railway Company of Chicago
Disgute : Claim of ~nployes
1. That Stationary Engineer F. O~ Harris was unjustly suspended
- from the service of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago for
one day, beginning at 12:OQ Midnight, March
16, 1974.
2. That accordingly the Belt
Railway
Company of Chicago be
ordered to compensate Stationary Engineer Harris in the amount
of one day's pay
(8
hours) at the applicable straight time
Stationary Engineers' rate of pay for March 16,
1974.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved ire this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway
Labor Act as approved June 21,
1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon. -
Stationary Engineer F. 0. Harris was employed by Carrier in the
Power Plant, Clearing Yard, Chicago, Illinois, assigned hours 12:00 A.M.
to
8:00
A. M. Among other duties, Claimant was responsible for maintaining
and monitoring a steam driven air-compressor.
The events leading up to this case occured on March 1,
1974.
There
is a basic dispute concerning the interpretation and conclusion to be drawn
Form ,l Award No.
7137
Page 2 Docket No.
6848
2-sxcofc-F&o-'76
from certain operative facts of record, gut the facts themselves
rare not contested, to wit: 1) Although the officially assigned sifts
are 8:00 A.M. - %+:00 P.M., 4:GO P.M. ~- :L2»00 Midnight and 12:00 Midnight -
8:00 A.M,, employees in the Power Plant have a longstanding practice of
beginning and, closing their respective hours of duty one (1) hour early
because of transportation connection. to and frog work; P) On March 1,
1974
Claimant actually started his work at or about 11:00 P. M, and was
relieved at or about 7:00 A.M.;
3)
During Claimant's tour of duty at
about 6:05 A.M. on March 1,
1974,
a drive belt broke on the oil pump of
the steam.air compressor. Claimant clawed, down the compressor without
completely shutting it down,
switched ~wex
to an electric compressor and
changed out the broken belt. Claimant then completed routine oiling of
the steam compressor, cut the
electric compressor off
and brought the
steam
compressor
back up to.normal at about
6:30 A.M.; 4)
At appro;Kimately
6:40
A.M.,the next shift employees, Chief Engineer James Flanagan and
Watch Engineer Walter Kurtz arrived. Flanagan is the supervisor on the
shift and Kurtz is Claimant's official relief. Flanagan changed into his
work clothes next to the compressor. At 6:55 A.M. Claimant left work and
Flanagan and Kurtz took over the machine;
5)
A few minutes after 7:00 A.M.
(the machine charts say 7:08 A.M., Mr. Flanagan testified to
7:02 A.M.)
Chief, Engineer Flanagan heard a knock in the compressor, stopped the
engine, and found that the high pressure crank pin bearing had burned
out. Under date of March 1,
1974,
Mr. Harris received the following
notice from Carrier's Chief of Motive Power:
"Please arrange to be in my office at
8:30
A.M., Monday,
March 11,
1974
for investigation to determine your responsibility, if any, for failure.to discover loss of
lubrication promptly and failure to take action to shut
down promptly on the steam-driven air compressor on
morning of March 1,
1974.
This resulted in the burning
up of the high-pressure crankpin bearing and the loss of
service of this compressor. If you desire representation,
please s~,, arrange."
Following investigation held March 11,
1974,
at which Claimant appeared
and was represented, he received another notice:
"You are suspended from actual service for one (1) daySuspension period begins 12:00 Midnight, March
16,
1974
and ends
11:59
P.M., March
17, 1974."
Form 1 Award No.
7137
Page 3 Docket No.
68118
2-BRCofC-F&0-'76
Thereafter the instant claim was :~: ~~.:~ and failing resolution on the
property comes
t-D
u~
a
or Ilispojition.
There is nrr claim here
t'~r
;,t ny ~° . Harris was not
afforded
a fair
investigation any: the only issue for uq is whether Carrier's disciplinary
action was supported by subs Mant
,~-A
evidence on the record.
Upon
careful
consideration o'
the entire recErr,4,we must conclude that it was not.
As w~! read the record, c'.,s,~r~1.er '~.~... °° . ~. ~;:~, disciplinary
action on a
conclusion that Claimant-'s cll:a,n<~irrg the, broken bwlt without shutting down
the compressor was the proximate cwuse o? the bearing malfunction some
45
minutes later at
-'a;
tine when Harris hid already left the
fob.
Aside
from speculation and conclusory etatementsp Carrier has offered no direct
evidence that such was the ease. Absent some measure of direct proof
of which this record is barren, L~°~e matter is rife for speculation as
to
the actual cause of the bearing failure - as even Carrier's chief witness
seemed to recognize in the transcript
rf
investigation:
"Q. Per.
Flanagan, based on
your experience what do you
consider to be the cause of the crank pin bearing
failure?
A. According to the bearing running hot, it was not
getting oil. when 1 came to work the bearing was
getting
hots
so it could be that maybe the
oil
line was plugged up or something to that effect.
and that is all that I could see.
Q. Mr. Flanagan, what was the condition of that crank
pin bearing when you last saw it on your previous
tour of duty when you left the machine at 4:00 P.M.
on 2./28/74.
A. 'Me bearing was running cool
Q. Mr. Flanagan, is there an oil pocket in the top of
the connecting rod to catch and retain oil for the
crank. pin bearing?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. Mr.
Flanagan, in your
opinion, would the retained oil
supply in the pocket be sufficient to run that bearing
ten or fifteen minutes without damage?
A. 1 don't think so."
Form 1 Award No. 7.37
Page 4 Docket No.
6$x+8
2-HRCofC-FBdJ-' 76
Carrier also suggests that Claims,n°G`s method of changing out
the belt was a violation of promulgated safety rules and per se
subject to disciplinary action. But if such be the case it is
incumbent upon Carrier to present evidence of the existence of the
rule and not unsupported assertic.·ns and allegations. Our study of the
record corroborates the view by the Organization.in its Rebuttal
Statement to wit: "There is
no
evidence of record that the replacement
of the belt in question while the conp.ressor was operating slowly was
unsafe, contrary
to
the Rules, or practices in such instances."
We must conclude that there is not sufficient evidence to support
Carrier's imposition of discipline and the claim must be sustained.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMWT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board -
By
e ' ~~
Rosemarie Hrasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of September,
X976.