1,
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3445
Award No. 3
Case.No. 3
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
And
Southern Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Foreman, W.D. McCormick, Marks Cape, 44 Ararat, Va.
24053, was suspended for 30 days for alleged violation
of Rule # 1516. Employees request pay for all lost
time with vacation and seniority rights unimpaired.
FINDINGS:
Claimant, at the time of the incident in question, was
employed as a Foreman on Bush Hog Gang No. 551.
By letter dated December 7, 1981, Claimant was notified
to attend an investigation concerning charges that he violated
operating Rule 1516 on December 2, 1981. An investigation was
held on December 14, 1981. By letter dated December 22, 1981,
Claimant was informed that he was being suspended for the period
from December 28, 1981 through January 26, 1982, for violation
of the above-cited Rule.
The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant
was disciplined by Carrier for just cause under the Agreement.
3~P~s-3
7
The position of the Carrier is that Claimant violated
Rule 1516 on the date in question and was justifiably disciplined for such violation. Rule 1516, cited by Carrier,
states in pertinent part, "... When a main track switch has
been lined for other on-track equipment, after movement is
complete, the switch must be restored to normal position and
locked". The Carrier contends that evidence adduced at the
hearing established that Claimant neglected to restore the main
track switch to its normal position, thereby violating Rule
1516. Specifically, Carrier cites Claimant's own testimony
to support its position. The Carrier alleges that Claimant
admitted that he was responsible for restoring the switch on
the date in question, and that he failed to do so.
The Carrier contends that the violation of Rule 1516 was
serious and could have created a disasterous situation for other
trains/employees of Carrier.
The position of the. Organization is that Claimant was
improperly designated by Carrier as the employee to receive
discipline in this case. The Organization contends that
Machine Operator L. Jefferson, who worked with Claimant on
the date in question, was responsible for the Rule violation.
The Organization alleges that since Jefferson was the Machine
Operator, it was his responsibility to ensure that the switch
had been returned to its normal position.
After review of the entire record, the Board finds that
a ten day suspension was the appropriate discipline.
PLB No. 3445
AWARD N0. 3
CASE N0.- 3
It is not the purpose of this Board to rehear an investigation that the Carrier held but only to determine if the discipline imposed was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of
discretion.
The Carrier has established through substantial, credible
evidence that Claimant violated Operating Rule 1516 on the
date in question. Claimant's own testimony indicated that
he neglected to make certain that the main track switch was -
restored to its normal position as required by Rule 1516.
While we do not entirely agree with the Organization's
position concerning Claimant's culpability, we do find that it
has some merit. Although we agree with Carrier that Claimant
was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the switch was
restored, we find that Machine Operator Jefferson was also at
fault for not restoring the switch. We, therefore, find that the
discipline imposed against Claimant was excessive under the circumstances. Accordingly, the suspension must be reduced to
ten days. We conclude that such a suspension is reasonably
commensurate with the offense committed by Claimant.
AWARD:
Claim disposed of per Findings herei .
, n ~n
eutral Memb r
rrier
iIR~
G~ 67~
~`f
Orga ization Member
Date: // 1,3 S