PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 2960
AWARD N0. 22
CASE N0. 27
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
and
Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That discipline assessed Foreman D. S. Barber was without
just and sufficient cause and on the basis of improper
charges. (Carrier's File D-11-3-342)
2. Foreman D. S. Barber shall be allowed the remedy prescribed
in Rule 19(d).
OPINION OF THE BOARD:
On December 18, 1980, the Claimant was directed to attend an
investigation on the following charge:
"Your. responsibility in connection with failure to properly
perform your duties as Foreman of the 4-R Crossing Gang and
to follow instructions given to you at approximately 9:00
AM when on December 15, 1980, you and your gang were observed
at 1:30 PM at MP 147 with insufficient tools and having
performed no work as directed." ''
The hearing was held on December 29, 1980. Subsequent to the hearing,
the Carrier imposed a ten-day actual suspension which activated
a 20-day deferred suspension in addition to the forfeiture of. his
Foreman and Assistant Foreman seniority rights.
On the day in question, the Foreman's gang of nine employes
were instructed to dig out a road crossing. The instructions were
given sometime between 9:00 AM and 10:30 AM depending on whose version
is believed. It is undisputed that at approximately 1:30 PM the
Claimant and his gang were observed at the crossing with only one
pick and one shovel. It is further undisputed that this was an
0,6?
too
insufficient number of tools for a gang of this size. Nor is it
disputed that as a result the project took far more time than normal.
The Carrier argues that the evidence more than adequately
establishes that the Claimant failed to properly exercize his responsibility as a Foreman. His failure, it is argued, resulted in
a significant loss of productivity and caused a considerable delay
in the work project. The evidence, suggests the Carrier, clearly
establishes a violation of Rule 1233 which reads as follows:
"They will direct and be responsible for the work and
training of employees under.their supervision. They must
see that these employees perform their duties in a safe
and efficient manner. They must keep the records and
make the prescribed reports of the time of their.employees,
and of the receipt, use, recovery or transfer of material."
It is contended that the discipline in light of these facts is
warranted.
The Organization doesn't deny the basic facts but argues.that
the Foreman had no control over the fact his gang had insufficient
tools and further that he had done everything possible to secure
tools but was unable to. In this regard, they direct our attention
to Claimant's testimony which indicated the truck in which the tools
were located was stalled at another location with a dead battery
and further that he had contacted two other Foremen who refused
to loan his gang the necessary tools.
In reviewing the evidence, we find that some circumstances
do mitigate the charge; rowever, not fully. In the final analysis,
the Claimant is still ultimately responsible for the improper
utilization of his gang. On the mitigating side there is the evidence
that the truck with the tools was in another location and would
not start and the fact that Claimant did contact two other.Foremen
PLB-2960
3
AWD. N0. 22
· CASE N0. 27
who were either unable or unwilling to provide tools. However,
these facts do not mitigate the fact, as Claimant did not deny,
that he could have called the project engineer or others to secure
tools. .
In reviewing whether the discipline assessed-is appropriate
for the offense.and degree of guilt we find it is excessive. .There
is nothing excessive about the ten-day suspension. However, the
Carrier has not presented any evidence to justify the permanent
revocation of the Claimant's Assistant Foreman and Foreman rights.
Poor judgment of the nature evidenced in this record is nqt enough
to convince us that the Claimant is forever incapable of properly
performing the duties of a Foreman. Therefore, the Carrier is
directed to, within 30 days, reinstate the Claimant's former
seniority rights as Foreman and Assistant Foreman.
AWARD
Claim sustained to the extent
indicated in the Opinion.
Gil ernon, airman
r Xf
raw or , arraer em er R.-U-.Rarper, mp o em er
Date:
~ a
J , on,--