Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10768
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10432
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee T. Page Sharp when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
( Seaboard System Railroad
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That under the current and controlling agreement, as amended,
Laborer J. F. Beckham, I.
D. No.
174684, was unjustly suspended
from the service of the Seaboard System Railroad on March 3, 1983,
thru March 14, 1983, after a formal investigation was conducted in
the office of Asst. Master Mechanic F. E. Byrd on February 28, 1983.
2. That accordingly, Laborer J. F. Beckham be compensated for all lost
time, vacation, health and welfare benefits, hospital, life and
dental insurance premiums be paid effective March 3, 1983 thru
March 14, 1983, and the payment of 10% interest rate be added
thereto.
` The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence finds that:
The carrier or carrriers 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.
Claimant was a laborer for the Carrier in Atlanta, Georgia. On December
16, 1982, Claimant was working the 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. shift. At about
10:30 P.M. he was driving a Carrier vehicle, a one and one-half ton stake body
truck. He attempted to turn the truck around on a one lane road that ran
adjacent to the tracks and, because of insufficient space, became stuck in a
ditch. As a result of this incident, the truck was damaged in the approximate
amount of $454.00.
On February 7, 1982, Claimant was working as a laborer on the 11:00 P.M.
to 7:00 A.M. shift. At about 2:00 A.M. he was driving the same vehicle on the
same road when he drove too close to the edge of the road and got the vehicle
stuck. This time the damage was about $299.00.
Form 1 Award
No.
10768
Page 2 Docket
No.
10432
2-SSR-FO-186
The Carrier held an investigation into these accidents. Claimant was
charged with:
"You are directed to report to the conference room
in the office of Asst. Master Mechanic, F. E. Byrd,
at 11 AM Friday, Feb. 25, 1983 for an investigation
to develop the facts and place the responsibility,
if any, in connection you (sic) backing vehicle 8911
into ditch on back road of Tilford yard December 16,
1982. Also of you pulling into ditch to let another
vehicle pass you on the wrong side of the road, which
runs along beside of main line, between Car Shop
crossing and Bolton road crossing on February 7, 1983.
You are being charged with that part of Rule 1 which
states the rules and regulations as well as general
and special orders issued from time to time are
designed to insure the proper care of the company's
property and the interest of the company and its
employees; To enter or remain in service is an
assurance of willingness to obey the rules. And that
part of rule 12 which states incompetency, willful
neglect, inexcusable violation of rules resulting
in endangering, damaging or destroying life or
property."
The specific Rules and Regulations of the Mechanical Department concerned the
care and concern of Carrier property. As a result of the evidence adduced at
the Investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the charges had been
sustained and suspended Claimant from the service of Carrier for a period of
ten days.
About the first incident, the Claimant had not been ordered to proceed as
far along the road as he traveled. He had assured his Supervisor that he had
proceeded on this path before and that there was no danger. He was told that
he might proceed, but warned not to get the truck stuck. He attempted to turn
the truck around on a road that was about eighteen feet wide. His rebuttal to
the allegation of carelessness was that he had turned the truck around on this
same spot on a previous occasion. He stated that there was no backup light
on the vehicle.
On the second occasion Claimant had pulled to the side of the narrow road
to let a smaller vehicle pass. The weight of the large truck was such that
the shoulder of the road gave away and once again the truck became stuck.
The fact that the truck had no backup light should have been cause for
Claimant to exercise greater care than normal. Under the circumstances, the
road proved to be too narrow to allow the necessary backing and because of
darkness the Claimant should not have attempted the maneuver. The fact that
he had previously been fortuitous enough to complete the maneuver does not
excuse the fact that he was extremely careless to attempt it again.
Form 1 Award No. 10768
Page 3 Docket No. 10432
2-SSR-FO-'86
When Claimant met the second vehicle head on, the decision had to be made
about which vehicle would
pull
over and which vehicle would pass. The smaller
vehicle would naturally weigh less and would be more maneuverable and would be
the logical candidate to
pull
to the side of the road. Instead, Claimant
pulled the heavy truck to the shoulder and the result of his carelessness was
to cause damage to the vehicle.
We find that the Investigating Officer was justified in finding that the
charges had been proved. Claimant had received many letters of warning for
past misconduct. One of these letters concerned another incident of carelessness. Apparently the letters of warning were having little effect on the
conduct of Claimant. Because of the previous incidents and the seriousness of
the two incidents which were the subject of the Investigation, we find that
the discipline administered was warranted.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy J. err - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of March 1986.