AWARD N0. 22
CASE N0. 24
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
3rotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
- and
3urlington Northern, Inc.
STATEMENT OF CLATM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The thirty (30) day suspension of Assistant B&B
Foreman David L. Briggs effective September 7, 1977,
vas without just and sufficient cause and wholly
disproportionate to the alleged offense. (System
File 15-3 MW-20 2/28/78C)
(2) Assistant B&B Foreman David L. Briggs be compensated
for all time lost and the discipline be stricken
from his record."
OPINION OF THE BOARD:
At the time of tae incident in question, Claimant was employed as a
painter-helper in the Maintenance of Way Bridge and Building (B&B) Subdepartment. He was an assistant forenar. in Carrier's B&B shop at Cicero,
Illinois. Shortly after commencing work on the morning of July 28, 1977,
Claimant was involved in a brief verbal altercation with Water Service
Mechanic D. 'Howard. Claimant reported the incident to his supervisor,
Mr. N. Wright. Upon returning from reporting this first incident Claimant
was involved in a second, and physical, altercation with Mr. Briggs.
Subsequent to this altercation notice of investigation was issued to the
two participants under date of July 28, 1977; such investigation to be
held August 8, 1977
"for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and
determining your responsibility in connection
with altercation occurring between yourselves
at about 7:15 AM on July 28, 1977, at Clyde B&B
Shop, Cicero, Illinois."
Subsequent to the investigation Claimant received notice dated
September 6, 1977 of thirty (30) days actual suspension commencing
September 7, 1977 assessed by Carrier for his part in the altercation
with Mr. Howard. Water Service Mechanic Howard was also assessed thirty
(30) days actual suspension; which discipline was not appealed.
The Organization initiated the instant claim on behalf of Claimant.
The claim was denied at each step on the property and is now properly before
the Board.
The Organization maintains that Claimant was provoked by Mr. Howard,
thus his responsibility in both altercations should be mitigated by the
attendant circumstances. Carrier's Safety Rule 57 is applicable here.
_ "Employees must not enter into altercation with any
person, regardless of provocation, but will make
note of the facts and report such incident in writing '
to their immediate superior."
the Organization further argues that Supervisor Wright could have prevented
the second altercation "had he taken appropriate action when the matter was
brought to his attention."
Based upon the record and transcript before us we find that Claimant
sari not without responsibility in contributing to the second "scuffle" with
Mr. Howard. Instead of avoiding Howard after reporting the incident,
Claimant taunted him again.
Further, even
if, arguendo, Supervisor Wright
=fight have handled
the situation
differently, his action, or lack thereof,
does
not
excuse
Claimant's involvement in the incident at issue.
n 6 - rgw,O.
3
In light of the above we find that Carrier's assessment of thirty
(30) days actual suspension was neither arbitratory nor unreasonable.
Accordingly, the claim is denied.
FINDINGS:
Public Law Board No. 2206, upon the whole record and all of the
evidence, finds and holds as follows:
1. that the Carrier and Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively, Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act;
2. that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein;
and
3. that the Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
0
Dana E. Eische Chairman
L. . al , Carrier Member F. A. Funk, Employee Member
Date: L/
~a
Z~ 0
(9 - 41".
-Z7i..