· (WARD t`?0. 65
Case Oo. 82
PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 1582
PARTIES)
THE ATCHISON, TOPETKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO )
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATE2,V7,NT OF CLAIM: Claim is in behalf of former Trackman J. D.
LGminquez, i-Liadle Division, for reinstatement to his former position with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired and
with pay for all wage loss commencing on July 29, 1976.
In this dispute the claimant was discharged from the service of the
C.::=ier for his alleged violation of Rules-14 and 16, General Rules
far the Guidance of Employes, Form 2626 Standard.
On July 29 the extra gang foreman directed the claimant to join him
in double spiking. The claimant had received a personal injury tao
days earlier while double spiking and asked that he not be required
to
engage in
double spiking.
The foreman insisted that the claimant stop the work he was doing
(single spiking) and
engage in
double spiking with him. Claimant
2Vain advised the foreman ,:hat it was unsafe and that he did
no-
-I
to engage in double spiking because of the injury that h_ had
raceived tvo days previously.
T:=a foreman became more insistent and then-advi-sed the claimant that
= = was taking him to towel because he would not participate in double
s_o=;?n;. Another employee offered to double spike with tt:? fo=e.'.=3n,
..
G
the foreman refused. Tile claimant was removed frcm se_VicO ,;'~ly
'J pending the investigation
which
was held
on
August 9.
_2
Organization
contends that:
the exclusion rule was violated
- : = Car _ ier allowed the foreman t0 remain i n
tilt
room 2f to ' ts ti.
j ._1.g-:
and
hear other testimony and then be called for re-direct
~xc.ui
::3
tin .
___Carrier DOintS Out that all
of
the witnesses were segreg_qtsd
~_iC_
o the hearing.
^:ais
do=s not meet the requirements of the rule. If a witness is to
.'.°_ _°_Call ed, he must continue t0 be segreV-eited.
`r:^°
foreman
i.°_5
'=__c:3
:_-L ev?rr,7one on the &a-L. 47aS C?llalifl.ed to double
.Spi1:8,
aid al' a_
, _ _..^.,71Cy2C'S,
including the claimant, had per'fGr-ifled thl3
S?='i~:C.
t : 1.-;
_ :'i.ai;:z
'L.^.7~
Cti'ee al
S0 t
e:,
t=i`l
ad
I_
hat doiibte
sp_c~_g S'ic.S C·G~'.`_.:G' , ___-_.^.3
Gn
-a2
cz.-hang ire worked w1th.
-- _.:3
=°Sti%nony
CE.i
the foreman was necessary in -his
CAS°, c^S:B=icily
_ t°_3ti::Cny C:nich ;7as rende_ed alter the abrcgaciC:1
Cf
G: 2 8:_G1'=5=:
L:'.e _~',·Gai^._ m;.g=a ^GGify Che
C.1Sai,Gllns
oil that basis. .~:·i2J°_r,
c
p~3
ts3a
- r · Award
No. 65
Page 2
the claimant himself testified that he refused to double spika, that
double spiking was unsafe and that this decision was for him to m=?c_
and not for the Carrier to make. The clai=t further testified a
knew how to double spike and had performed this service on another
railroad prior to his employment by the Santa Fe.
The evidence of record indicates that double spiking is not an unsafe
practice if the employees have been properly instructed. On that
basis the Board finds no support for the claim.
A717ARD: Claim denied.
a_
Preston J. Cri~a.=an
,.~.~J ~t~y'.
' Organization ":ember
~''
CarriV Member ,__ __,.__._. _ .