PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3445
PARTIES TO DISFU TE',,'
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
Award Number: 49
Case Number: 49
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
AND
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Claimant, R. G. Short, allegedly charged with violation of
Norfolk/Southern Operating Rule.GR-3, attached hereto, also
conduct unbecoming 'an employe, March 17 and 18, 1987. Our request
is that he be reinstated, record cleared of all,charges, pay for
any and all lost time. i
FINDINGS
By letter dated March 19, 1987, Claimant was instructed to attend a
formal investigation oh charges that he violated Rule GR-3 and engaged in
conduct unbecoming an employe on the night of March 17-18, 1987. The
formal investigation was held on March 31, 1987. By letter dated April 16,
1987, Claimant was suspended for
90
days based on evidence adduced at the
investigation.
The issue to be resolved in this dispute is whether Claimant was
suspended for just cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should the
remedy be.
3LIys-q,1
''
On the night of March 17-18 ,1987, Claimant was encamped near Livingston, Alabama with T & S Gang #1. In the course of that night, Claimant
poured water on a sleeping co-worker and struck a lighter to heat him up,
I
disrupted a card game with repeated invitations to wrestle and jumped out of
his. trailer
injuring himself
. Claimant also appeared intoxicated (i.e., he
smelled of alcohol and exhibited bloodshot eyes, unstable balance and
abnormal behavior) to his supervisor and refused a blood alcohol test.
Rule GR-3 provides that "all employes must follow instructions from
proper authority, and must perform all duties efficiently and safely."
The position of the Organization is that Claimant was unjustly
suspended because the Carrier has not met its burden of proof and that
Claimant committed no: offense. Specifically, the Organization maintains
that Claimant's behavior is not subject to discipline because he was not on
duty at the time of the alleged incidents and did not fail to follow
instructions, and because the Carrier's witnesses of the events testified in
conflict with each other. The
Organization maintains that
Claimant was
treated too harshly, in that he engaged in the same level of horseplay as did
other employer, in camp who were riot disciplined.
The position of the Carrier is that Claimant was suspended for just
cause under'the'Agreement. The Carrier contends that the evidence of his
abnormal behavior and specific signs of alcohol use show that Claimant was
intoxicated, and it'asserts that
his
refusal of a blood alcohol test should
be construed against him. The Carrier maintains that it'is well established
2
.3~-t~ls_~Iq
that laymen are competent to determine whether someone is under the
influence of alcohol. .Further, the Carrier contends ,that intoxication and
horseplay of the sort in which Claimant engaged is conduct unbecoming an
employe.
After review of the entire record, the Board finds that the suspension's"
",,
was for just cause under the Agreement.
i
The Carrier has established by substantive credible evidence in the
record that Claimant was intoxicated on the night in question. The lay
witnesses' evidence of the specific characteristics of intoxication and
Claimant's general abnormal behavior make it clear that there was sufficient
evidence to reasonably conclude that Claimant was intoxicated. Intoxication
is an intolerable condition for someone engaged in the transportation
business. The dangerous horseplay and unpredictable behavior it produces
lead to injuries, such,as Claimant suffered, and unstable situations which
are potentially dangerous to co-workers and the public. The Carrier's
discipline was reasonable under the circumstances and was neither arbitrary, -
capricious nor discriminatory.
AWARD
Claim denied.
/Nicholas H. Zumas, utral Member
ar'Crier rier Member
) . orgap zation Member
,Date:
~J~C ,:
._ -
il
il . 1
iV I
4