NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26478
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 ten (10) days of suspension imposed upon Track Inspector/Foreman J. Price for alleged 'F
action' for alleged defects at MP 26.9 and MP 35.7 on February 6, 1984 was
without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of unproven charges (System
Docket CR-732-D).
(2) The claimant's record shall be cleared of all charges leveled
against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was a Track Inspector Foreman with 35 years of
service. His duties included a weekly inspection of the
Cape May Secondary track. On February 6, 1984, Claimant performed his normal
duties including the inspection of the Cape May Secondary track and submitted
the required inspection reports. On February 14, 1984 four Carrier officials
highrailed the Cape May Secondary track and found two serious track defects
necessitating taking the tracks in question out of service and making repairs.
Subsequently by notice dated March 15, 1984, following a Investigation, Claim
ant was found guilty of the following charges and was given a fifteen day
actual suspensions:
"A. Failure to detect and initate immediate remedial
action on the out of service defect of 58 5/8'
guage at MP 35.7 on the Cape May Secondary Track
when you inspected the track on February 6th,
1984.
B. Failure to detect and initate immediate remedial
action on the out of service defect of 5 3/8"
from zero crosslevel for one rail length combined
with same rail length hanging completely clear of
ties at MP 26.9 on the Cape May Secondary Track,
when you inspected this track on February 6th,
1984."
Carrier argues that the serious track conditions observed by the Carrier officials had not been
Award Number 26686 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26478
inspecting track, reporting defects and ensuring that the defects are repaired, it is evident th
took place at all, according to Carrier. It is argued further that according
to the Carrier officials making the inspection, the defects clearly must have
been present some eight days previously. It is concluded that not only was
Claimant properly found guilty of the charges, but that the discipline accorded him was lenient unde
The Organization maintains that Carrier has not borne its burden of
proof in this matter. It is argued that there is no probative evidence to
show that the defects in question were present on February 6, 1984, the date
of Claimant's last inspection. In addition, there was testimony by Claimant,
who had an unblemished record of 35 years service prior to this incident, that
there were poor conditions in the area to start with and with the early thaw
and excessive rain in the first part of February many changes could have occurred within a few days
part by two Carrier witnesses. It is concluded that the testimony adduced at
the Hearing did not justify any discipline whatever.
The Board, after careful analysis of the testimony at the Investigation, believes that there is
conclusion with regard to Claimant's guilt. Even if Claimant's testimony is
totally disregarded, which should not have happened, the Carrier officials who
made the inspection some eight days after Claimant's normal inspection, could
only speculate as to the existence of the defects on the earlier date. That
judgement, which was later, under cross examination, partially qualified, was
insufficient to support the charges. There were no facts whatever to support
the conclusions reached. In fact, the two key Carrier witnesses agreed that
Claimant's version of what probably happened was plausible. The Board concludes that Carrier did not
guilt with significant substantial evidence; in short Carrier failed to bear
its burden of proof (see Third Division Awards 19853 and 24039). 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.
Award Number 26686 Page 3
Docket Number MW-26478
A WAR D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Cs
ancy J.
/P150
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 23rd day of November 1987.