PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 2960
AWARD N0. 66
CASE N0. 63
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
and
Chicago & North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The disciplinary demotion from B&B Foreman to Machine
Operator of C. C. Brown for allegedly failing to economically
perform his duties was without just and sufficient cause and
based on conjecture and speculation. (Organization File
4D-1913; Carrier File D-11-3-356)
(2) B&B Foreman C. C. Brown shall be allowed the remedy
prescribed in Rule 19(d) of the effective Agreement.
0
OPINION OF THE BOARD:
This Board, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and
holds that the Employe and the Carrier involved in this dispute are
respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
On July 13, 1981, the Carrier directed ,he Claimant to attend an
investigation. The letter read in pertinent part as follows:
"You will arrange to appear for hearing on Friday, July 17,
1981 which has been postponed and re-scheduled at the request
of the Vice Chairman. BMWE as indicate: below:
~9'~0
- 60 6
_ 2
"PLACE: B&B Office, Boone,-Iowa
"DATE: Thursday, July 23, 1981
"TIME: 9:00 a.m.
"CHARGE: Your responsibility in connection with
failure to economically perform the duties of
. your position as B&B Foreman in connection
with work performed between May 18, 1981 and
July 9, 1981 on the Marshalltown scale project.
-"You may be accompanied by one or more persons of your own choosing
subject to applicable rules of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of
Way Employee's schedule, and you may, if you so desire, produce
witnesses in your own behalf without expense to the Transportation
Company."
Subsequent to the investigation, the Claimant was given the discipline now
on appeal before the Board.
Several Carrier witnesses at the investigation stated that 216 man
hours was a reasonable estimate of time required to complete the job in
question. The crew under the Claimant's direction, however, took 339 man
hours to complete the job.
The Board is convinced that the Claimant took longer than necessary
to complete the job. However, there is a certain amount of doubt in the,
record as to how much longer he took than was deemed "normal" by the
Carrier. This doubt is based on the fact that the Carrier's benchmark of
comparison was described as an estimate or average of how long it would
take to complete the project. Thus, 216 hours is not a definite number of
hours necessary to complete the job, but a number within a range of hours.
The Board finds it significant that no Carrier Officials inspected the job
until near its completion. Therefore, it cannot be determined that there
weren't factors that would tend to cause the job to take somewhat longer
than the average. Thus, it is quite possibl(. that even under normal
circumstances, the job could have taken more than 216 hours without being
unreasonable.
_ ~ Cy, lvo_ lobo
' Accordingly, while the Claimant took longer than he should have and
thus, some discipline was appropriate, we can't determine that his failure
to perform the job was as aggrievous or as dilatory to the degree
contended by the Carrier. When this mitigating factor is taken into
consideration with the Claimant's 36 years of unblemished service and the
importance of the opportunity for advancement, it is difficult to conclude
that permanent revocation of Foreman and Assistant Foreman rights is
appropriate for a single instance of this nature.
In view of the foregoing, we will direct the Carrier to reinstate the
Claimant's Foreman and Assistant Foreman rights. However, there wilt be no
pay for time lost.
AWARD:
The Claim is sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion. The
Carrier is directed to comply within thirty (30) days.
a Vernon, airman
-R-V. ar'-R per, EmpPuye` ember Crawford/ rd/ Cart ler--M-em-Fe-r
Dated: (` (~