PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 2366
DOCKET NO. 36
AWARD N0. 24
CASE NO. 1370 MW
FILE: SL-289-T-80
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Illinois Central Railroad Company
and.
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
°(1) The ten (10).day suspension imposed upon
Motor Car Repairman J. D. Brown for his
alleged failure to fill Tie Injector KTM102 with oil which resulted in damage to
the engine was without just and sufficient
cause (Case No. 1370.M of W).
(2) Motor Car Repairman J. D. Brown shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered
during the ten (10) day suspension."
OPINION OF BOARD
The Claimant was notified to attend as investigation
concerning certain damage to a Tie Injector.
Subsequent to the investigation, the Carrier assessed
a 10 day suspension on the Claimant.
The Employee had been assigned to perform certain work
on a Tie Injector machine, and that work included changing
the oil and filters. Claimant did not complete his assigned
work on the machine, in that he did not fill the machine
with new oil and he failed to inform supervision that the
work was not finished. When the machine was used the next work
day, certain engine parts locked due to a lack of oil.
The Claimant concedes that he was assigned to change
oil, oil filters and fuel filters on a number of machines,
and he also concedes that he had drained the oil from the
Awd. 124 - 2366
Tie Injector and replaced the appropriate filters, however
before he was able to replenish the oil supply, he was
instructed by his Foreman to perform certain other work in
another shop. He complied with those instructions, and
spent the remainder of his assigned hours on the subsequent
assignment.
Thus, the Employee insists that the true fault lay with
the individual who used the machine the next work day without
checking the oil level. The subsequent employee did concede
that he failed to'check the oil prior to starting and using
the machine.
There appears to be little, if any, controversy concerning the facts of the case, inasmuch as it is conceded that
the Claimant did not replace oil into the machine; and it
is equally clear that his failure to have done so was the
result of an instruction that the Claimant see to a different
task. While the failure to put the oil in the machine may
very well not be the fault of the Claimant because of in-,
structions from higher authority, nonetheless, it is unquestionable in the minds of the Board that he had some duty
to advise the Supervisor that work on one of the machines was
only partially completed. We are not sure, however, that
that inaction exonerates the subsequent employee from failure
to have checked for oil, especially since a long holiday weekend had intervened since the machine was last used. However,
that employee's claim is not properly before us, except as it
might relate to this particular Claimant.
Certainly, this matter is not free from all doubt, and
cogent arguments concerning culpability may be presented by
both parties. Without, in any manner, condoning the Employee's
action in toto, we can understand the possibility that the
Supervisor's instruction and the inaction by the subsequent
employee could be contributing factors to this incident, and
accordingly, we will reduce the suspension to five
(5)
days.
FINDINGS
The Board, upon consideration of the entire record, and
all of the evidence finds:
The parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the
meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.
This Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved
herein.
The parties to said dispute were given due and proper
notice of hearing thereon.
2.
Awd. 124 -= 2366
AWARD
1. Claim sustained to the extent that the Board upholds a five (5) day suspension.
2. Carrier shall comply with this Award within thirty
(30) days of the effective date hereof.
J seph A. Sickles
haft an and Neutral fiber
Hugh
0. Harper 1
Organization Member
DATE
J., ."Gibbins
C ~ tier Member