PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 1582 - ERSLNNE` DEPARTM.ENY
PARTIES)-ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO
RG $ 1984
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: That the Carrier's decision to assess Claim
ant emerits a ter
investigation'May 7,
1984 was unjust; that
the Carrier now expunge 30 demerits from Claimant's record, reim
bursing him for all waSe loss and expenses incurred as a result
of attending the investigation May 7, 1984 because a review of
the investigation transcript reveals that substantial evidence
was not introduced that indicates Claimant is guilty of violation
of rules he was charged with in the Notice of Investigation.
FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds that the parties
herein Carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.
In this dispute, the claimant was notified to attend an investigation to be held in Bakersfield, California, April 19, 1984 to
determine his responsibility, if any, in connection with. his
alleged railure to rep ort for work as instructed on March 24,
1984, in possible violation of Rules 2 and 15, General Rules for
the Guidance of Employes, Form 2626 Standard, 1973 issue. Pursuant to the investigation, the claimant was assessed 30 demerits
for his responsibility in connection with violation of Rules 2
and 15. The
investigation was
postponed and held May 7, 1984.
Louis Munoz, Roadmastet in Bakersfield, testified that the claimant was under his jurisdiction. He testified that he worked the
gangs until 2:30 a.m., Saturday morning, and instructed Foreman
Ortiz to recall Bakersfield Section for work at 8:00 a.m. to
finish repairing
a derailment. He testified that the claimant
did not request to be off on Saturday. The Union points up that
he did give one employee permission to be off on the 24th.
C. H. Ortiz was the Section Foreman at Bakersfield and he testified
that he received
instructions from
Mr. Munoz to direct everyone
to work at 8:00 a.m. the following morning. He testified that
none of
the employees requested to be off, but that two did not
report for work, the claimant and Mr. Armenta. Armenta was the
employee who had been given permission to be off by Mr. Munoz.
The crew tied up in Bakersfield at 3:30 a.m. and were instructed
to return at 8:00 a.m. The claimant testified that Mr. Munoz was
always picking on him. Mr. Munoz testified that the claimant and
RECEIVED
JUL 8 4'984
C. F. FOmE
p1,B-1582
Award No. 272
Page 2
Mr. Martinez were the only operators who had been assigned to
that particular crane truck at Bakersfield. Mr. Ortiz testified
that they had another operator qualified to operate the boom
truck, but that they had not used him on that truck.
All of the evidence has been carefully studied and considered
and the Board recognizes that it was important on the day. in
question for the claimant to report for duty. It was further
important that the claimant failed to call in that he would not
be able to report for duty. However, at the same time, he was
not released until 3:00 a.m. and he would have had only four
hours rest. There is testimony of record that another employee
failed to report for work the following Monday and received no
discipline. This is not contested by the Employer. It is recognized that the derailment would have been repaired by that time.
Nevertheless, it is the opinion of the Board that 30 demerits is
too severe. The Carrier is directed to reduce the demerits to
15 demerits.
AWARD: Claim sustained as per above.
ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with this award within
=ty days from the date of this award.
restore.oore, C airman
TJni6
n
Rem e
Cat
;ZW
Dated at Chicago, Illinois
August 8, 1984
RECEIVED
JUL
Z
41984