NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26130
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The discipline ('Disqualification as a foreman commencing June
17, 1983 to August 8, 1983') of R. B. Smith for alleged 'Failure to supervise
employees under your jurisdiction in proper procedures of track maintenance
according to M.W. 4 and F.R.A. Rules' on June 6 and 9, 1983 was arbitrary,
capricious, unwarranted, on the basis of unproven charges and in violation of
the Agreement (System Docket CR-319-D).
(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: Claimant, with 18 1/2 years of service, was working as
a Track Foreman at the time of the incident involved
herein. By letter dated June 17, 1983, Claimant was held out of service for
"failure to properly perform duties as
MW
Track Foreman" in connection with
rail replacement work on June 6 and June 9, 1983. Subsequently Claimant was
instructed to appear for a Hearing in connection with the following charges:
"Failure to supervise employes under your
jurisdiction in proper procedures of track
maintenance according to
M.W.
4 and F.R.A.
Rules, in changing rail on 'A' Track, Enola,
Pa., June 6 and June 9, 1983, which resulted in
conditions causing track to be removed from
service."
Following an investigatory Hearing Claimant was notified by letter
dated August 8, 1983, that he was found guilty of the charges and was disqualified as a Foreman from
Organization argues that the charges in this dispute were vague and
not specific and it was impossible for Claimant to know which of the hundreds
of Rules and procedures he was alleged to have violated. Further the Organization argues that Claima
Officer refused to make certain track inspection reports part of the Transcript. It is also averred
Award Number 26489 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26130
Carrier argues that not only were the charges adequate to permit
Claimant to mount his defense, but that the evidence clearly established his
guilt of the charges. Carrier bases its conclusion on the fact that the Track
Supervisor found that two rails, in two different locations, which had been
installed by Claimant and his gang, had bars falling off because bolts were
not in the bars or were not tightened.
After a careful review of the record and the Transcript, the Board
finds that Organization is essentially correct in its positions. The charges
were at best marginal in their clarity; it is essential that charges contain
more precise information as to the particular irregularities involved. In
this dispute they did not, thus making it more difficult for Claimant to
prepare his defense. However, it also must be noted that there was no request
for a postponement. The Hearing Officer made two errors in the conduct of the
Hearing which were in themselves fatal flaws: he failed to permit the introduction of inspection rep
further he did not call as a witness the Track Inspector who found the problems with the rails, but
has failed to bear its burden of proof in this dispute. Even though there is
some evidence of track problems (partly hearsay) there is nothing to indicate
that Claimant failed to supervise his gang properly. The entire position of
Carrier is based on defects discovered some eight days after the last day
Claimant and his gang worked on the rails in question; there was no evidence
dealing with what occurred on the two days when the work was performed. The
Claim must be sustained.
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 violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest
Nancy ~ ever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of September 1987.