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 Bruce H. Hatten, Trackman, employed by the
Carrier'for eight years prior to this alleged incident,
be restored to the service of the railroad with seniorit~
rights and all other privileges provided by either agreement or past practice. That he be compensated for all
time lost until he is returned to the service of the
railroad.
(b) That Bruce H. Hatten's record be cleared of all
charges brought against him.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Claimant Bruce Hatten is a Trackman employed by Carrier at its
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Facility. On August 23, 1982, Claimant was
notified to attend a hearing to investigate the following charges:
Case No. 8
Award No. 6
-2-
1. Violation of Safety Rule 30525 in that -
you failed to wear prescribed eye pro
tection while working at Bell inter
locking on August 12, 1982 at approxi-
mately 9:40 a.m. while you were install- _ -
ing rail anchors.
2. Unauthorized absence on August 17, 18, 19,
20, and 23, 1982.
A hearing into the matter was held as scheduled and as a
result of that hearing, Claimant was found guilty of the charges and
dismissed from Carrier's service. A review of the transcript of the
hearing (which was made a part of the record) reveals that Claimant
received a fair hearing and that he was granted all substantive and
procedural rights guaranteed by Agreement. It also reveals that _
Claimant was working on the track without his safety glasses on.
In fact, they were in his back pocket: This infraction on its own
calls for serious discipline. Carrier need not leave itself open
to liability claims by returning to work employes who willfully
violate safety rules. Claimant in this case, compounded his rule
violation by not returning to work when released by his doctor and
by refusing to contact his Supervisor about his continued absence.
The Supervisor in this instance called Claimant's home in an effort
to talk to him about his condition and his failure to. return to work
promptly. Claimant obviously-avoided contacting his Supervisor to
explain his position. Carrier has a right to expect more from its
PLB No. 3542
Case No. 8
Award No. 6
-3-
employes than that.
' Claimant violated a Safety Rule. He staved away from work
for at least four days without authority. He failed to contact
his Supervisor when requested. When these infractions are considered,
together with Claimant's exceedingly bad past record of attendance
(seven letters of warning and two 10-day suspensions), it becomes
clear that Claimant has not responded to Carrier's efforts to make
him into a worthwhile employe. Carrier need
no
no further in this
instance.
AWARD
The claim is denied.
R E. Dennis, Pdeutral Membe
n
Op/
,z ze~a
'Neil, Carriar Member