r~
Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9361
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9298
2-NRPC-EW-'83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Elliott H. Goldstein when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Parties to Dispute: ~ National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employer :
1. That the action of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak:)
was unjust and arbitrary in their assessment of a three (3) day
deferred to Electrician Anthony Laudano.
2. That, accordingly, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation be ordered
to remove the said deferred suspension from Electrician Anthony Laudano's
record.
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 employer involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act:
as approved June 21,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived sight of appearance at hearing thereon.
This is a claim for time lost by the Claimant Electrician for a three-day
deferred suspension for violation of Rules "F" and "H" of the AMTRAK Rules is
that on December
14, 1979,
the Claimant allegedly operated a drop table crane
in a manner that caused damage to that crane. There is no question that the
crane on which Claimant was the operator bumped into another overhead crane.
The contention of the organization is that the drop table crane was in
less-than-satisfactory condition; that any overhead traveling crane that is
operated by employes who have pushbutton equipment on the floor level makes
these cranes impossible to operate at 100 percent efficiency; and that this type
of crane has a tendency to float after the stop button is put into operation.
Therefore, to the organization, Claimant should not have been disciplined due
to the fact that the crane may have malfunctioned.
It is the position of the Carrier that the Organization could offer no
proof that the crane involved was in need of repair. Furthermore, the Carrier
established that no report of faulty equipment was received prior to this
incident and a visual inspection conducted is conjunction with the second level
appeal of this case supports the conclusion that the crane was not in need of
repairs. In this case, then, the discipline should be upheld. No evidence
_ z . . _ .. _ __ ._. . . _ __ . _ _ _._
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9361
Docket No.
9298
2-NRPC-Ew-'83
whatsoever was presented that the crane was defective or that the damage to
the crane was caused by anything other than the negligence of Claimant.
After careful review of this record, the Board finds that the on-site
inspection of the crane by the Carrier revealed that the crane had, in fact,
exhibited a tendence to vary its speed and, when the operating button was released,
it continued to move at a descending rate of speed until it came to a complete
stop. Therefore, there was evidence that the crane may have malfunctioned and
that the Claimant was not, in fact, at fault. Since the Carrier disregarded
this evidence in reaching its findings, the Board finds that this claim must be
sustained.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL
RAIhRQAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
~--
By
emarie Brasch AdministYativE Assistant
Date at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of January, 1983.
Iwo