NATIONAL xAa.xwAD AarUSTMM BOARD
TIED DIVISION Docket Humber Mi_24380
- Will'" G. Caples, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Zaployes
PARTIES 7o DISPUT3:
(The Chesapeake and Ohio Amilvay Company
( Southern Region (and Hocking Division)
STATDONT OF Cr.AIh4:
'Claim of the System Camittee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) Tae Carrier., without just and sufficient cause and on the
basis of naprow en charges, improperly disciplined B&B Mechanic William L.
Pegaa on charges that:
(a) he allegedly falsified his physical condition on
August 11, 1980 (System File C-D-995/YG-2909);
(b) he allegedly operated Crane No. FC'C-705 in an unsafe
manner on August 15, 1980 (System File C-D-997MG-2912).
(2) The above charges be stricken from Xr. Pegrnm's record and
that he be reimbursed for all earnings lost in conformity with Rule 21(e).'
CLOIFIOE CC? BOARD: The Claimant, a B&B mechanic with 11 years service prior
to June 23, 1980, se cared a leave of absence from the
Carrier to undergo a
hemorrhoid operation
. On August
5
he vas released by
his physician to return to work on August
6,
1980. On August 13 he was removed
from service under the premise it eat necessary for the Carrier to determine
Claimant's physical condition. Claimant remised a letter dated that day from
Carrier to attend an investigation stating:
"Iou are being charged with fhlsifyiag your physical condition
in order to e-rsde your regular duties on August 11, 1980, at
the approach trestle to the Float Bridge, U. 8. Navy Operating
Base, Norfolk. Virginia, clxisting yon had been placed on
'light duty' by your attending physician...
An investigation vas held which found, Carrier stated, in its disciplixe letter,
September 12, 1980:
"Ion were mot restricted to light duty work by either the
doctor's disability certifficates dated August
5
and August 1,3,
nor did you Inform anyone of your alleged light duty status
until morning of August 11, 1980, after determining day's
work activities and then only performed work which was of a
light nataxe.
bard Number
24405 ftP t
Docket Number W-24380.
"Discipline applied is ten
(10)
days o-m~ead snspensioa
and six
(6)
math grobatiomry period. Tour serri.ce record rill be marled aean'diagly."
dice elaineat vas tarolred in a seesnd incident on Acguat
15, 1980
vl~au he vas operating a Cram
f8M0-705
in the perfarmnee of assigned duties.
Id. the operation of the Crsae his saperrisor eh.-gad that he attempted to strike
him. with
the cane; the CILlimurass,
at
that time, suspended frog Carrier's
serrice. fie snbseqceatly received a letter dated August
25, 1980
to attend
an
insest3gatioa on
September
k, 1980:
`to d&1!arrln. 7auz . responsibility, if d.:7, in the unsafe
operation of Crane 3o. RI0-70g, esdangrring the safety of
St-aetma Ssqerrisas
a.
E. Wright.. on August
15, 19$0,
at
apprcrimsttely 9:00 a.z. on Harbor Fond between pier
9
and
pier 14 at
Test ?oat Fens,
Virginia.'
Mme Osrriar by letter dated &eptasber
17, 1980
stated it had fo=d Maisert at
fault in the irrrestigstion and assessed discipline 'applied in five
(5)
days
c&-ual suspension tlnirh ve sill consider as
alresdy.bavixg
been served during
tby t?.me you vere held oft pending
iarestisation
of the incident." Tae letter
Vent on to oaiple the discipline assessed September
12,1980,
stating "tbe ten (10)
days area suspenaiaa e-ilk.
rave
·to.be s--arad as actual vmspenzinn beginning
Srpte=bar
24, 1980
`.:.rough October
3, 1980."
Before dlseassixg ice merits we t=act spxk to a =atention of the Carries that Joiriiag of the
haailed cm the property. die is = proper basis for eomplsint in this respect.
Mme caeainiag of the cltiss for g.=esen'ltioa to this Board did not expebi or alter
tae cIslas. 'fue Osrrier bas in so vay bees misled. The Carrier's coateation in
this reaper: is denied tad the claiss ci11 be
dirpoatd on
their srnrits. See
rest ass.-da of this Dirieicm,
22611
and
22499,
inroleissg
the same carrier and
aw'.-rd 22480, all to the sale effect.
In Claim No. 1, thre was a charge of falsifying of -claimant's physical
condition and Carrier found. Claimant guilty assessing discipline of ten (10) days
overhead suspension and six (6) month probationary period with the Claimant's service record to be m
sustained its burden of proof on this charge. The discipline assessed was not unwarranted., arbitrar
In Claim No. 2, where Claimant was charged with unsafe operation of a
crane endangering his supervisor; found guilty by the Carrier in a letter dated
September 17, 1980 and discipline applied of five (5) days actual suspension we
find the Carrier failed to sustain its burden of proof and the agreement was violated. The suspensio
Award Number 24405
Docket Number MW-24380
Page
3
The Carrier in its letter of September 17, 1980 was in error since
the letter was based on an incorrect assumption that both disciplines were
valid and imposed the ten (10) day overhead suspension. Claimant was suspended from service far a to
no factual basis for triggering the overhead suspension. The Carrier is
thus chargeable for fifteen days of pay at the Claimant's regular rate and
his service record corrected to .remove evidence of the suspension and we so
hold.
yINDI1fG8: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
and
ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
That the Cgrrier and the Eaployes involved in this dispute are
respectively Mrriar and Employes vithia the meaning of the Railway Tabor
Act, as approved June 21,
1934;
That this Division of the AdJustme=+ Board has Jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That in regard to
Claim
No. 1, the
Agreement scam not violated;
That in regard to Claim 3o. 2, the Agreement vas violated.
CCLsia No. 1 is denied.
CClaia No. 2 sustained in accordance 91th the Opinion.
NATIDAAL RAILROAD ADIUSM4XYT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
By ''~.-"~-y~-.-.-c
~2c t~
fi
7
Rosemarie Breach-- Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June, 1983.