NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26003
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Northeast Illinois Railroad Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The ninety (90) days of suspension imposed upon Mr. S. C. Sorn
for alleged 'failure to have track in compliance with company standards at the
completion of assignment July 20, 1983' 'in alleged violation of Rules "B",
"D", "N", 146 and 148 of Rules 6 Regulations for Maintenance of Way 6
Structures, Form PE-01-RC (NIRCRC Employee Conduct Rules)' was arbitrary,
capricious and on the basis of unproven charges (System File (NIRCRC-D-1107).
(2) The claimant's record shall be cleared of the charges leveled
against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: On July 20, 1983, Claimant was assigned as a Tie Gang
Foreman in Chicago, Illinois, but was called upon to
operate a Spike Driver. When the work was completed that day, the Department
Manager determined that some ties were missing and others not properly
installed. Carrier assessed a 90-day suspension for his "failure to have
track in compliance with Company standards at completion of assignment on July
20." Before this Board, Carrier contends that (1) Claimant, and not the
Project Engineer, was in charge of the Tie Gang that day. He was never
relieved of his responsibilities and was paid at the Foreman's rate. (2) As
the operator of the Spike Driver, he was the last man over the track and thus
was in a position to note irregularities. (3) Even if Claimant was not the
Foreman, Company Rules require all employes to report unsafe conditions.
The Organization alleges that Claimant was not in charge of the Tie
Gang that day and he was not responsible for the work performance. At the
same time, the work completed met minimum standards for scheduled speed and
the track was not unsafe. Even if Claimant was responsible, the penalty
imposed was excessive.
Claimant offered to operate the Spike Driver on the day in question
and it was agreed that he would do the work. It is Carrier's contention that
by doing so, he did not relinquish his responsibilities as Foreman. We do not
agree. It was unrealistic of the Department Manager-Engineering to assume
that Claimant could work as a Machine Operator and at the same time supervise
others in their activities. A Project Engineer, who was a Company Official
Award Number 25923 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26003
and senior to Claimant in authority, was present on the site. It was logical
to assume that he would be responsible for overall supervision, since, unlike
everyone else, he was not engaged in working on ties. Based on the Department
Manager's testimony as to what he told the Claimant and the Project Engineer,
we must conclude that he did not issue clear directions to the two men on the
matter of supervision.
Upon a review of the entire record, we find that there was
insufficient evidence of a probative nature adduced at the Investigation to
support the Investigating Officer's decision concerning Claimant's guilt.
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, we sustain the Claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearings;
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 violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. Dever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of February 1986.
~r
`y