Form
1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 31337
Docket No. MW-31722
96-3-93-3-753
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Andree Y. McKissick when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company ,
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(1) The discipline (thirty (30) demerits] imposed
upon Motor Car Repairman J. R. Romero for
allegedly :ailing
'...
to repair the carriage
guide wheel assembly of the No. 197 Spiker. '
on June 10, =992, was unwarranted, arbitrary
and excessive, on the basis of unproven
charges and in violation of the Agreement
(System File SAC-17-92/UM-16-92.)
(2l As a consequence of the violation referred to
in Part (1) above, the Claimant's record shall
be cleared of the charge leveled against him
and the discipline assessed in connection
therewith shall be rescinded."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved
in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Form 1 Award No. 31337
Page 2 Docket No. MW-31722
96-3-93-3-753
This claim involves the omission to repair a broken carriage
wheel guide of Spiker 197 :n a timely manner resulting in a 30
minute-delay of 30 to 35 railroad workers on June 10, 1992. The
Carrier contends that Claimant was the only repairman on duty at
chat time and was repeatedly instructed to make this repair a top
priority. Moreover, the Carrier asserts that this is a continuing
pattern of behavior as evident in the companion case which occurred
on June 9, 1992, in Third Division Award 31338. Thus, the Carrier
argues this continuing, wrongful conduct should be taken under
consideration in the assessment of the appropriate punishment for
Claimant.
The Crganization contends that Claimant performed his duties
as :nscr-cted in :his instant claim and in the related claim.
However, =he Organizat_on maintains, that the two claims involving
the same Claimant should be treated separately. Still further, the
Organization argues that the Claimant's past record should not be
considered in assessing his conduct on this particular disciplinary
charge. To do so, the Organization contends, would be a violation
of Rule 57(b).
The Board finds that based upon the substantial evidence
presented, the Carrier has met its burden of proof. In addition,
the Board concludes that the application of Rule 57 (b) was
correccly applied is determining the quantum of discipline which
should be properly assessed. In sum, the Board further finds that
Rule 57(b) was not violated by Carrier.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified
above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not
be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of January 1996.