This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
As a result of charges dated July 9, 1999, Investigation held on August 3, 1999, and by letter dated August 30, 1999, the Claimant, a Machinist at Waterville, was assessed a 60 day suspension for violation of Safety Rule 23 on July 1, 1999.
The record shows that on July 1, 1999, the Claimant was observed standing on a bar which was inserted into the fly wheel of the engine block on Locomotive 213. The Organization disputes the Carrier's assertion that the Claimant engaged in misconduct, but contends that in an effort to complete his assigned task on a jammed engine, the Claimant was not standing on the bar; the Claimant had one foot on the ground; and the Claimant was attempting to push the bar and free the fly wheel with the full force of his legs and all of his body weight.
The Organization is correct that Rule 23 does not specifically prohibit standing on a bar as the Claimant did (either with one or two legs). However, the burden here is on the Carrier to show through substantial evidence that the Claimant violated the Rule. Although not specifically addressed in Rule 23, it is certainly a reasonable interpretation of that Rule that "[s]tanding or attempting to stand on improvised . . . supports made of . . ." a bar is also encompassed within the scope of the prohibitions stated in the Rule. That conclusion is particularly warranted given Rule 23's provision that ". . . other unsafe means is prohibited." Substantial evidence therefore supports the Carrier's conclusion that the Claimant violated Rule 23.
Under the circumstances, we cannot find that a 60 day suspension was arbitrary. At first it appears that such a lengthy suspension does not fit the degree of demonstrated misconduct. However, the Claimant has a rather substantial prior disciplinary record concerning safety violations. See Second Division Award 13602 Form 1 Award No. 13759
where the Board upheld a safety related 45 day suspension given to the Claimant and further discussed the Claimant's prior disciplinary record:
The purpose of discipline is to correct misconduct by sending a message to the employee through increasing amounts of discipline that he must conform his conduct to expectations of the Carrier's Rules and reasonable expectations of the workplace. The prior safety related suspensions including the 45 day suspension discussed in Award 13602 have not gotten the message through to the Claimant. Under the circumstances, a 60 day message in this case is therefore not arbitrary.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.