Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28086
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. SG-28011
89-3-87-3-568
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Peter R. Meyers when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company (MP)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Union
Pacific Railroad Company (MP):
On behalf of Signalman M. G. Burks, for reinstatement to service with
all lost time and benefits restored, beginning August 11, 1986, account of
Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as amended, particularly
Rule 28, when it dismissed him, did not prove him guilty as charged, and gave
him excessive discipline." Carrier file 860100. General Chairman file
87-11-TP
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was employed as a Signalman. On August 12, 1986, Claimant
was notified to attend a formal Investigation in connection with the charge:
"to develop the facts and place your individual responsibility, if any, in connection with your
failure to protect your assignment at 7:00 A.M. on
August 11, 1986, and for your allegedly being under
the influence of intoxicant while on company property
at 7:00 A.M. August 11, 1986."
The Hearing took place on August 20, 1986, and, as a result, Claimant was dismissed from Carrier
Claimant's behalf, challenging his dismissal.
Form 1 Award No. 28086
Page 2 Docket No. SC-28011
89-3-87-3-568
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and
we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding
that the Claimant was guilty of failing to protect his assignment and other
Rule violations.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in
the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the
type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unles
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
In the case at hand, the Claimant was properly found guilty of failing to protect his assignment and
while on Carrier property. Although those are serious offenses, this Board
finds that the Carrier's termination of Claimant was excessive. Therefore,
this Board finds that the Claimant shall be reinstated to service, but without
backpay.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest: G~
Nancy J. D -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this llth day of September 1989.