The Claimant, R. F. Thomas, was issued a citation and reprimand based on an investigation held on July 22, 2004.
The Organization argued that the Carrier violated Rule 13.1 of the current Agreement and that the Carrier failed to provide a necessary witness in the investigation. That witness would have testified that there were faulty brakes on this track mover. The Hearing Officer decided to let the record speak for itself. The Carrier was aware that the brakes on this piece of equipment could have been faulty. Therefore, this claim should be sustained not only on the procedural aspect but also on the merits. The Organization further objected more than five times and the Hearing Officer did not rule on any one of them. The Carrier had been advised that this equipment was not fit for service. It is not fair to lay the blame on the Claimant rather than the Carrier itself. Therefore, the claim should be sustained.
The Carrier argued that the Claimant was involved in a situation where he moved cars into a building, one off which would not clear the opening. The Claimant stated that he was not aware that this car was too high. The Organization's sole argument was that the brakes on the car mover were not in mint condition. Even if this were true, the Carman could have stopped the car in question before it hit the building. The Claimant was responsible for causing the car to be moving in the wrong place by not noticing it was a high car. The record shows that the Claimant did not exercise due care, therefore, he was liable for this situation. No matter what the Organization's arguments were, they do not expunge the Claimant's primary area of responsibility that of overlooking an oversized car.
Upon complete review of the evidence, the Board finds that the Claimant engaged in a lack of proper judgement on the date in question. The procedural errors cited by the Organization, while considered by the Board, were not serious enough to show convincingly that the Claimant did not receive a fair hearing. The Claimant was disciplined because of a lack of judgement which was clearly shown in the record of this case. The Board notes that the Claimant only received a reprimand which was certainly appropriate given the circumstances. The Board notes that there were thousands of dollars worth off damage that occurred which primarily resulted from the Claimant not being properly observant. Therefore, the Board finds that the discipline given was appropriate, and the claim shall be denied. Form 1 Award No. 13891