"Claim on behalf of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the BNSF Railway Company:
Claim on behalf of J. A. Gratzek, for reinstatement to service with compensation for all time lost, including skill pay, with all rights and benefits unimpaired and with any mention of this matter removed from his personal record, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 54, when it issued the harsh and excessive discipline of dismissal against the Claimant, without providing a fair and impartial investigation and without meeting its burden of proving the charges in connection with an investigation held on January 21, 2010. Carrier's File No. 35-10-0013. General Chairman's File No. 10-009-BNSF-154-TC. BRS File Case No. 14505BNS F."
This 30-year employee was charged with failing to properly record the position of switches on his Authority to Occupy Track Form on December 7, 2009. After agreed-upon postponements, an Investigation was held on January 21, 2010. On February 16, 2010, the Claimant was dismissed for violating MOWOR 8.2 Position of Switches.
The essential facts in this case are not in dispute. On December 7, 2009 the Claimant was working as a Signal Maintainer. He had performed a series of tests that day in the field, including those on a switch which he threw. There is no dispute that at the time of throwing the switch, he did not record its position on his authority form. Later that day, back in the office, a Supervisor picked up the form from the Claimant's desk. The discrepancy was later noticed.
The Claimant contends that he was still working, but simply away from his desk (responding to another emergency call) when the Supervisor took the form. He asserts that he would have filled it out properly before going home that day. The Carrier counters that the Claimant's procedure was not the proper way to proceed. It contends that he should have completed the form in the field immediately after performing the test. When he failed to do so, the Carrier argues that the Claimant, at that point, committed the violation. The fact that he may or may not have completed the form some three hours later in the office is, it contends, not relevant to the violation.
The Claimant's record is not clear. He had signed a waiver which imposed a 30-day record suspension along with a 36-month probationary period on February 17, 2009. According to the Carrier's discipline policy, the February suspension was a "Level-S" infraction, as is the one now before the Board. Two "Level-S" suspensions within the probationary period may result in dismissal.
The Organization contends that there was no Rule violation and that there were no unsafe conditions. It argues that the form was taken without the Claimant's authorization. It asserts that even if there was a violation, it was minor and given the Claimant's long employment history, dismissal is overly harsh.
The Board finds that the Carrier met its burden of proof. There is a reason that forms must be filled out at the time of the work. Waiting some three hours before Form I