Parties
to the
Dispute
. PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3542
Pennsylvania Federation Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employes
Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(a) That Charles D. Smith, Track Foreman, employed by
the railroad for seventeen (17) years, be restored to the
service with seniority rights and all other privileges
provided for by either agreement or past practice.
That he be compensated for all time lost until such
time he is returned to the service of the railroad.
(b) That Charles D. Smith's record be cleared of all -
charges brought against him.
OPINION OF. THE BOARD
Claimant C. D. Smith is a Track Foreman employed by Carrier
at Canton, Head of Yard, Baltimore, Maryland. On October 1, 1981,
while off.duty, Claimant was involved in an incident with a woman
on or near Company property`,~bat led to his arrest and to an
eventual plea of guilty to a charge of assault with intent to rape.
Case No. 5
Award No. 5
. . le&.3 N6 - 35v,2-
~W D ~d'
Claimant was sentenced to five years in the Department of Corrections-one year in jail and four years' probation in a drug and alcohol - -
program.
Carrier charged Claimant at that point with the following:
Pleading guilty to a charge of assault with intent to
rape, in Baltimore County Criminal Court of February 3,
1982, as a result of an occurrence on Company property,
Sparrows Point Branch, Baltimore County, Maryland, at
approximately 3:30 a.m. on October 1, 1981.
A hearing into the matter was held on March 10, 1962. As a
result of that hearing, Claimant was found guilty. Based on his
guilt as charged and his past discipline record, he was dismissed
from Carrier's service.
Petitioner contends that Claimant was not or. Company property
when the incident occurred and that his plea was not an admission
of guilt. It also contends that Carrier did not charge Claimant
within the 30 days required by contract.
Carrier contends it followed all procedures required of it -
by contract and that Claimant's dischar.oe should be upheld.
This Board has carefullv reviewed the record of this case
and must conclude that Claimant is guilty as charged, and that
this incident standing alone is sufficient 8rounds on which to
terminate an employe. h'hen-~t is viewed in light of Cln.imant's
past discipline record, t-.;o previous disnnissals (restored to
service on a leniency basis) and Eoisr pr_viuns susponsiuns (une
PLB No. 3542
Case No. 5
Award No. 5
-3-
for five days, two for ten days, and one for 20 days), it is very
clear that Claimant is a troublesome employe who has been 3iven
every chance possible. This Board can not, based on any acceptable
arbitral standard, give Claimant another.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
R. ,;. Dennis, Neutral Member
n
J Dodd, Brm loye Member ~_ O'Neil, Carrier Member