NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-22812
George E. Larney, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The discipline (reprimand) assessed Section laborer
Tim Valencia was unwarranted and without just and sufficient cause
(System File D-6-78/MW-8-78).
(2) The reprimand shall be expunged from the claimant's
personal record."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Tim Valencia, a Section laborer
assigned to Carrier's Shoshone Section Gang
with headquarters located at Glenwood Springs, Colorado, was given
a written reprimand following a formal investigation held on
January 4, 1978, for his role and responsibility associated with
destruction of Company property by fire.
On December 20, 1977,
members of
the Shoshone Section Gang
travelled by
Section Motor Car to Mile Post 345.2 located midway
between sidings Dotsero and Shoshone and fifteen (15) miles east
of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, to perform some track work. At about
3:45 p. m., the Gang
completed their
work and while waiting for two
trains to clear so
they could
head home, a decision was made by the
Foreman to start up the motor car so it would be warmed up and
ready to go.
Because of
the below freezing weather that day, the
gas in the glass bowl on the fuel line had turned to ice. In an
effort to solve the problem, the Foreman removed the bowl and
cleaned out the ice with a pocket knife. This action, however, was
not sufficient as it was then discovered that the fuel line..had
frozen too. As an attempt to thrust a wire through the fuel line
failed, the Foreman next lit a flare (fusee), the burning tip of
which
has a temperature of about 2,000° Fahrenheit, handed it to
the Claimant and told him to hold the fusee seven (7) to eight (8)
inches from the frozen fuel line to thaw it. Approximately twenty
(20) to thirty (30) seconds later, Claimant
hollered to
the Foreman
Award Number 22754 Page 2
- Docket Number h&1-22812
who was now inside the Motor Car, that the Motor Car had caught on
fire. The Foreman and Claimant responded immediately and attempted
to put the fire out with water and snow but to no avail. As a result,
the Motor Car was completely destroyed.
The organization takes the position that under the circumstances which it characterizes as mitig
standard procedures for dealing with this particular problem and
strict adherence to established safety rules is not always possible.
The Organization argues that in situations where employes find
themselves in a desolate area and where equipment is frozen, it is
a common practice to apply a fusee to remedy the problem. In any
event, the Organization maintains, had the Claimant not followed the
instructions of his Supervisor, he would have been guilty of
ca~itting insubordination. On this basis alone, the organization
contends, the Claimant should not have been disciplined at all.
This Board views the occurrence of the fire as an
unfortunate consequence of the several ill-advised decisions made
by the Foreman to solve the problem at hand. Nevertheless, the
Claimant cannot and should not be absolved from his failure to
abide by the established safety rules and his attendant failure to
notify his Foreman that his instructions were not in conformance
with either the established general procedures or the safety rules.
Had the Claimant so informed his Foreman that his directives to him
were in violation of the safety rules and had the Foreman then
reissued those directives, then it appears the Claimant may have
made a case based on possible insubordination. However, such was
not the case in this instance and therefore, it is our determination
the Claimant must share in the responsibility associated with the
fire and ultimate destruction of the Carrier's Motor Car.
FINDINGS; The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds*
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute
are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
Award Number 22754 Page 3
Docket Number I8d-22812
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
aver the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUST14ENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST..
A
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of February 1980.