Award No. 106
Case No.106
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
_TO and
DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company
STATEMENT "(1) That the Carrier's decision to dismiss track
OF CLAIM laborer Pedro G. Saavedra was in violation
of the provisions of the current Agreement
and in abuse of discretion.
(2) The Carrier will now be required to return
Mr. Saavedra to his former position with
seniority and all other rights restored un
impaired and compensation for all wage loss
suffered.
FINDINGS
Upon the whole record, after hearing, the Board finds that the
parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board is duly constituted
under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and
the subject matter.
The record indicates that the Claimant, who had been employed with
Carrier for some 30 years sustained an injury while on duty on July
7, 1983. Following a week of off-work and light duty status, Claimant
while in the company of the Road Master, was examined by a Carrier
physician on September 19, 1983. He was thereafter unable to perform
any duties in his former capacity as a track laborer. Carrier indicated
that it attempted to contact Claimant thereafter to no avail. Thgre
~u3Ct-I
o(o 0 · -z-
.
was no communication with him whatsoever. He was charged with unauthorized absence from October 8, 1983, to January 31, 1984, and
sent a termination letter dated January 31, 1984.
Following a hearing which had been requested by Claimant, Carrier
indicated that there was no evidence introduced into the record
justifying Claimant's absence from October 8, 1983 through January
31, 1984. Therefore Carrier concluded that he would remain in the
dismissal status.
The record indicates that Claimant had brought suit against Carrier
due to the injuries he had sustained in July which were settled
in full on September 18, 1985. In that settlement agreement, Claimant
agreed that the sum paid to him ($90,000)would among other things
preclude him from ever attempting again to return to duty in any
capacity and that agreement should constitute and be treated
as his resignation. Based on that document it is clear that the
current dispute has been rendered moot by the subsequent settlement
agreement between Carrier and Claimant and therefore must be dismissed.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
I.M.Lieberman, Neutral-Chai man
C.F.Foose, Employee Member H. Mdl", Carrier member
San Francisco, California
January
X,
1987