PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3666
PARTIES Brotherhood~of Maintenance of Way Employes
DILUTE: and
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company
STATEMENT The claim of James Wallace that he be
compensated for the ten (10) days served
suspension and that his seniority be
. reinstated which will qualify him for
the position of Backhoe Operator.
FINDINGS: By reason of
the Agreement
entered into by and
between the parties on June 13, 1984, and upon
all of the evidence in the record, the Board finds that the
parties hereto are respectively the employe and the carrier
as defined in the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that
it has jurisdiction in this proceeding.
In a letter dated October 27, 1983, Claimant was
notified to attend an investigation to determine his responsibility,
if any, concerning the "damage to Motorola Building on
October 17, 1983, in the vicinity of Norpaul area caused by
E & L rented backhoe #83.which (he was) operating". The
investigation was held on November 4, 1983, and on November 15, 1983he was advised that he was suspended for ten (10) days, that he
was restricted from the position of Backhoe Operator and that -
his name was removed from the seniority roster for that position.
He actually served his suspension from November 17 through
November 27, 1983.
The record shows that on October 17, 1983, the
Claimant was operating Backhoe No.
83
in the vicinity of the
Norpaul Yard Office, that he picked up a bundle of five
(5)
or
six (6)
switch ties with the bucket, that he shifted into reverse,
hat some of the ties slid out of the bundle and struck the
idotorola warehouse, damaging several steel building panels. The
replacement of the panels, the board-up service and security guard
totaled $2,200.00.
e
~3 3~6
Award No. 2
Docket No. 2
_ 2_
When the Claimant shifted the backhoe into reverse,
it was necessary for him to maneuver the backhoe between the
Motorola warehouse a line pole and the railroad track. With
five (j) or six (6j switch ties, which were 12 or
13
feet long,
the Claimant should have used greater care and caution in manipulating
his backhoe. His work record in operating a backhoe is not one
of commendation. On May 2,
1983,
while operating backhoe No.
83,
he tipped it over damaging the backhoe and injuring himself.
On September 14,
1983,
while*again operating backhoe No.
83;
he
struck and damaged a ladder on the track signal causing damage
estimated at
$300.00.
For all these reasons, the assessment of the ten (10)
day actual suspension was fair, proper and justified. But the
record does not justify the removal of his name from the seniority
roster which disqualifies him from operating a backhoe for the
balance of his tenure with the Carrier.
His operation of the backhoe on October 17,
1983,
as well as on May 2,
1983
and September 14,
1983,
may have been
less than perfect, but not so extremely negligent that a
discipline of work restriction was justified. The suspension
discipline has certainly served its purpose to convey to the
Claimant the necessity of care in operating a backhoe. A penalty
of total restriction from this work for all time is extremely
excessive.
It is the finding of this Board that the Claimant
should be reinstated as a backhoe operator with full seniority
preserved and unimpaired, but with no compensation for any lost
earnings, if any, resulting from his disqualification.
AWARD
1. Claim for compensation for the ten (10) days'
Claimant served as a result of his suspension is denied.
2. Claim for reinstatement of Claimant's seniority
rights to. the'posit;Lon of backhoe operator is sustained in
accordance with the findings.
DA D , Chairman an eu _ra .em er
12Yc-
arr er Member
MM
A A R , P ploye em er
DATED:~ ''.Z, ~ c
T "~
~'