PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3558
PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD
OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
TO )
DISPUTE ) SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
EASTERN LINES
AWARD
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM:
" 1. Carver violated the effective Agreement when Dallas
Division Machine Operator J. D. Bartek was unjustly suspended from
service from December 8, 1986, through December 12, 1986.
2. Claimant Bartek shall now be paid for forty (40) hours at his
respective straight time rate of pay and his record cleared of the charge
account of him being unjustly suspended." (MW-87-29)
OPINION OF
BOARD:
By letter dated December 2, 1986, Claimant, an employee with over fourteen years
of service and a Machine Operator since March 2, 1973, was assessed a five day
suspension as a result of an accident on November 19, 1986. After hearing on January 8,
1987, and by letter dated January 20, 1987, Claimant was found to have violated Rules
965 and 1041 and the five day suspension was upheld.
On November 19, 1986, Claimant was operating Ballast Regulator 129RH near MP
58.70 near Giddings, Texas pursuant to Foreman E. D. Michalk's instructions to proceed
into the clear into Giddings in order to tie up. At 3:25 p.m. Claimant came to a crossing
that had crossing signs but no lights or gates. Claimant slowed the regulator but did not
stop. Claimant blew the horn at the crossing and proceeded. Claimant's regulator collided
with an automobile. No injuries were sustained to either Claimant or the passengers in the
car and the ballast regulator was not damaged.
PLB 3558, Award No. 61
J. Bartek
Page 2
A police report of the
incident stated
that the driver of the automobile was not
paying attention and did not see Claimant's regulator. The driver of the automobile
indicated to Foreman Michalk that her brakes did not hold. According to Michalk, flagging
protection was not afforded that day due to a lack of manpower.
During his years of service as a Machine Operator, Claimant's record is
unblemished. At the hearing, Foreman Michalk described Claimant as a "good all around
employee ... conscious of what he is doing." Roadmaster E. L. Hugh testified that he
considered Claimant a good, dependable and safety conscious employee.
The relevant Rules state:
"Rule 965. SWITCHES, HIGHWAY CROSSINGS AND
RAILROAD CROSSINGS: Operators must use extreme caution
when running over switches, frogs, derails and crossings and must
flag over crossings where traffic is dense. Highway traffic has the
right of way.
Rule 1041. RESPONSIBILITY: They will be held responsible for
the safety, care, maintenance and performance of the machines to
which they are assigned" - -
We are unable to find substantial evidence in the record to support the assessment
of discipline in this case. Claimant's ballast regulator was struck by an automobile that the
record indicates was driven by an individual who was not paying attention and further, the
automobile's brakes did not operate correctly. Coupled with the fact that the record
demonstrates that flagging is the responsibility of the Foreman, and the Foreman did not
provide flagging protection due to a lack of manpower that day, we are unable to find
Claimant culpable to a degree to wan-ant the imposition of discipline. On the other hand,
the record demonstrates that Claimant proceeded cautiously in accord with the above rules
and could not avoid the collision.
We shall therefore sustain the Claim.
PLB 3558, Award No. 61
1. Bartek
Page 3
AWARD:
Claim sustained. The suspension shall be rescinded and Claimant shall be
compensated for time lost
Edwm 1-I. Benn, Chairman
and Neutral Member
C. B. ne . A. ons, Jr.
Carrier a er Organization Member
Houston, Texas
April 29, 1988