PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 1760
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
to and
Dispute Norfolk and Western Railway Company
We
5,~'h~s
1 U
·'`
Statement 1. Carrier.violated the effective Agreement on December
of 16, 1975, by suspending Kenneth S. Conrad for five days
Claim after failing to allow him a fair and impartial hearing.
2. Claimant Kenneth S. Conrad shall be paid for all time
held out.of service and the
hearing be
stricken from his
record.
Findings The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all
evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and
Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by
Agreement dated February 2, 1976, that it has jurisdiction
of the parties and the subject matter, and that the parties
were given due notice of the hearing held.
Claimant, a Section Laborer, on November 12, 1975, was in
charge of an N&W Motor Vehicle 4385. He backed his truck,
at approximately 4:00 PM, into a parked automobile in
the vicinity of Stamper Feed Mills at Moberly, Missouri.
As a result of this incident a formal hearing was held
thereon and as a result thereof Carrier concluded that the
testimony supported the charge resulting in Claimants being
assessed a five <5) day actual suspension from service.
P`i3
/ 76 o
-Award No. 20
Fage 2
The Board concludes that Claimant received
a
fair and
impartial hearing in conformity with the provisions of
the current Agreement.
The record reflects that there was sufficient evidence
adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's
culpability.' It indicated that Claimant was driving the
vehicle, that he was in the process of parking the truck
at approximately 4:00 PM, that in backing up to park the
truck he struck a privately owned automobile which was
parked behind the truck, and that the truck had no defective mechanisms contributing to the accident. Form MM-15$,
Rules and Instructions governing and use operating and
maintenance of M&W owned highway motor vehicles, in Rule
6.-thereof under General Rules, reads:
"Before vehicle is placed. in motion the driver
will look all four ways; behind, right, left, and
ahead, and fully determine that clearance is
adequate."
In addition to those instructions a sticker is attached to
the dashboard of the trucks reasserting Rule 6.
Claimant testified that he had walked from the depot in
front of the truck and got in the drivers door. Thus, it
is reasonable to conclude that Claimant had failed to comply
with the aforementioned instructions to determine clearance
is adequate in all four directions before placing his vehicle
in motion. In such circumstances Claimant was negligent in
Pt. l3
/ 76 a -Award No. 20
page 3
the operation of Company vehicle 4385 on November 12,
1975.
The Board finds that the discipline assessed was reasonable
and commensurate with the nature of the proven offense.
In the circumstances this claim will be denied.
Award Claim denied.
'~:
Christi , p oyee Memo E. N. co s, Carrier MembeF_
Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman
and Neutral Member
Issued at Salem, New Jersey, April 4, 1980.