NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-24093
Wesley A. Wildman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Inc.
(Former St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad
Signalmen on the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company.
On behalf of Signal Maintainer S. P. Schultz for all lost time between
5:00 p.m., March 12, and 8:00 a.m., March 27, 1980, during which he was suspended
for allegedly violating Carrier Operating Rule 222. (Carrier file: PRSCHULTZ, Stephen, P.)
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant in this case is a Signal Maintainer assessed
a 10 working day disciplinary layoff for allegedly being
at fault in allowing his motor car to be struck by a regularly scheduled
train on main track.
First, the organization representing Claimant asserts that the
handling of this case on the property was tainted as a result of the fact
that the same Carrier official issued notice of investigation, conducted the
hearing and rendered the initial decision. It is a well established
principle that there is, of course, nothing inherently or per se prejudicial
in this not uncommon practice. When there is a "multiplicity of roles"
played by a single carrier official in the handling of a discipline case,
this Board looks primarily to the question of whether, as a result, a Claimant's
ability to make a full and adequate defense was prejudiced or whether there
was a material denial of any aspect of due process to which a claimant has a
right. We find no evidence on the record that such was the case here.
Next, the Organization claims that the transcript of the hearing
"on the property" is so consistently garbled and incomprehensible it is
inadequate in its entirety as a document to be used as the basis for the
imposition of discipline.
In our industry, investigatory hearings are conducted by, and are
largely within the control of, the carrier. As has been universally recognized,
this fact places a heavy duty and responsibility on a carrier to provide a
fair and adequate hearing in every sense. Part of this duty, given the
significance of the appeals process in railroad discipline cases, is to
observe high standards in assuring that a reasonably accurate and precise
record is preserved of what transpired at the hearing. The transcript in
this case is indeed deficient in this regard and comes quite close to falling
below minimally acceptable standards; we do not, however, find it fatally
flawed as a document to be used as the basis for the imposition of discipline
in this instance.
Award Number 25148 Page 2
Docket Number SG-24093
The record does clearly indicate that Claimant had in his possession
an appropriate time table and had secured a relevant line up on the trains
for the day on which the accident occurred. Substantial evidence, accessible
enough even on this record, further establishes that Claimant's motor car was
indeed struck on the main line by a regularly scheduled train noted on both
the time table and the line up, at a time which clearly could and should have
been calculated and anticipated by Claimant. Claimants excuse that the
train which struck his motor car usually ran late is not a defense. Accordingly,
we find Claimants fault adequately proved on this record.
As a 10 working day disciplinary suspension for this incident does
not seem to us inherently excessive or unnecessarily harsh, and as there is
no conclusive substantial evidence on the record supporting the Organization's
assertion that this penalty is contrary to established practice of Carrier in
cases of this kind, we allow the quantum of discipline imposed here to stand.
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: ,/"
Nancy J: )?ever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 9th day of November 1984.
/ ~~
11
~~'hicagc G~