Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10761
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10861
2-SOU-MA-'86
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Raymond E. McAlpin when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
( Aerospace Workers
Parties to Dispute:
( Southern Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Southern Railway Company violated the controlling agreement,
Rule 34, but not limited thereto, when they wrongfully and unjustly
suspended Machinist K. D. Bell, Chattanooga, TN, from service for (10)
calendar days starting June 2, 1983 and continuing through June 11,
1983.
2. That accordingly, the Southern Railway Company be ordered to pay
Machinist K. D. Bell for all lost time wages and clear his record
of the charge.
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 in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes 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.
The Claimant, K. D. Bell, a Machinist with the Carrier, and in service
since February 10, 1977 was suspended for 10 days starting June 2, 1983 and
ending June 11, 1983 as a result of a formal investigation held on May 20,
1983 wherein the discipline was increased from 5 to 10 calendar days. The
Claimant was charged with performing faulty work, specifically, on May 8,
1983, failure to properly renew a latch assembly on Engine 3262, which
resulted in an engine shutdown on May 9, 1983 when the latch assembly lodged
in the adjuster head on the engine in question.
The Organization argued that the record speaks for itself. There was no
proof the Claimant did not perform his job properly. There was no showing it
was the Claimant's responsibility for this failure, and in any event the
discipline seems to be excessive even if the Board would find that the
Claimant was responsible for this activity.
Form 1 Award No. 10761
Page 2 Docket No. 10861
2-SOU-MA-'86
The Carrier argued the Claimant was the last to work on the part which
failed. It is the Claimant's responsibility. The engine shutdown, which could
have resulted in more substantial damage, was clearly the responsibility of
the Claimant. The discipline in question was fair under the circumstances,
and the Carrier notes Rule 34 allows for an increase in discipline as a result
of a formal investigation.
Upon complete review of the evidence, the Board finds that the Claimant
did in fact cause the shutdown of Engine 3262 by failure to properly perform
his work. However, there was no showing that this failure on the part of the
Claimant was deliberate. It appeared to be an "honest mistake." With respect
to the appropriateness of the penalty, the Carrier has indicated in its
Submission that the Claimant is above average. The penalty does seem to be
excessive and somewhat arbitrary given the work record of the Claimant.
Therefore, the Board will order the penalty to be reduced to a 5 calendar day
actual suspension. The Claimant is admonished to be more careful in the
performance of his duty in the future.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: ,
Nancy J.r - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of February 1986.