AWARD N0. 162.
Case No. 196
PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 1582
PARTIES) ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO )
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF 14AY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That the Carrier's decision to assess claimants Sauls and Smith
records with ten (10) demerits was unjust and not supported by evidence adduced into the transcript.
2. That the Carrier expunge ten (10) demerits assessed claimants
records from their personal records and pay for all wage loss and
expenses incurred in attending the investigation.
FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1532 finds that the parties
er~are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act,
as
amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.
In this dispute the claimants were charged with failure to protect
their assignment on Extra Gang No. 69 at Dallas, Texas between 6:00
a.m. and 6:20 a.m. on August 10, 1981. The claimants were charged
with violation of Rules
2
and 15, General Rules for the Guidance of
Employees, Form 2626 Std. In other words, the claimants were charged
with the offense of being twenty minutes later in reporting to work.
Claimant Smith testified he was driving to work when his car broke
down and was picked up by fellow trackman M. E. Wright who took him
to the work site. The hearing officer stated for the record that
'trackman Wright signed a waiver for ten demerits rather than attend
the formal investigation. This statement is not a matter of testimony, but since the waiver signed by trackman Wright was introduced
into evidence, such may be considered by the Board.
Claimant Sauls testified that he did report to work at 6:00 a.m.
The claimant testified that he went directly to the job site which
was located at Second Street Crossing. Track Foreman Wells testified
that the crew regularly reported at the section tool house located at
the East Dallas Yard Office.
Foreman Wells testified that he first saw the claimant when he was
walking up the track toward the job site from the viaduct area east
of Dallas Yard. He further testified that the employees do not go
directly to the job site but always meet at the tool house.
i 5'8.~L - Award No. 162
Page 2
Student Foreman Moore also testified that claimant Sauls was not at
the Second Street Crossing when he arrived at that location and he
observed the claimant walking in the direction of the work site from
the viaduct area. He testified that claimant Sauls arrived in the
neighborhood of 6:15 a.m. He also testified the employees had been
instructed that tardiness would not be tolerated and that the tool
house was the regular meeting place for the gang.
Foreman Wells testified he had given the employees a phone number
where'he could'be reached. However, Foreman Wells did concede that
claimant Smith came to the gang on August 6, 1981 and this incident
took place on August 10, 1981, which was a Monday, and he was not
certain that he had advised claimant Smith where he could be called.
The evidence reveals that claimant Smith was making every effort to
report for work on time even though he was ill and that M. E. Wright
had picked him up and taken him to work. Evidence further indicates
that claimant Smith did not have a telephone number to call Foreman
Wells and advise him he was ill.
Under the circumstances discipline is unjustified, and the Carrier is
directed to expunge all record of the ten demerits assessed claimant
Smith herein and to pay him for all wage loss and expenses incurred
in attending the investigation as required by the agreement between
the parties.
After carefully examining all of the testimony of record, it is the
opinion of the Board that the evidence is sufficient for the Carrier
to find that claimant Sauls was guilty as charged. Under the circumstances there is no justification for setting aside the discipline
assessed to claimant Sauls.
AWARD: Claim disposed of as per above.
ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with this award within
t~iirty days from the date of this award.
ra~ton r' , airman
arrier Member
rZanization Member.