NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3689
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
AWARD N0. 8
Case No. 8
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. Claim of the System Committee of'the
Brotherhood that the Carrier's decision of
September 20, 1984 to assess Section Foreman
Mr. P. Atencio's personal record with thirty
(30) demerits was in violation of the provisions of the current Agreement and in abuse
of discretion.
2. The Carrier will
now
be required to remove
the thirty (30) demerits from Claimant's personal
record and no further reference be made thereof.
FINDINGS
Claimant, a Section Foreman, was subject to an investigative hearing concerning an incident on June 28, 1984 in
which he "allegedly failed to follow proper procedures in
placing a Slow Order on the westbound track between M. P.
767.75 and M. P. 7623.00". Following the hearing, the Carrier assessed 30 demerits on the Claimant.
PLB No. 3689
Award
No. 8
Page 2
From the record, it is clear that the Claimant h,iJ the
responsibility to advise the Dispatcher to enter the cited
Slow Order, in view of a defective track section under repair
by the Claimant and his crew. Although the Dispatcher learned
of the necessity for caution from another source, the. Claimant failed to take the initiative in timely fashion to advise
the Dispatcher. While the Claimant was present when the
Signal Maintainer confirmed the need for a Slow Order to the
Dispatcher, this call was at the Dispatcher's initiative.
The fact that a possibly serious incident was averted
does not lessen the responsibility of the Claimant.
The Carrier cited the second paragraph of Rule 12 (C)
of the Maintenance of Way and Signal Rules, which reads as
follows:
If track or bridge is safe for movement of
trains at a reduced speed, the train dispatcher
must be advised as to the location and speed
restrictions required. Yellow and green signals
must be placed as prescribed.
The Organization points out that the
rule
does not
specify who is responsible for advising the Dispatcher. The
Claimant, however, was aware that, in this instance, it was
PLB No. 3689
Award No. YS
Page .3
his responsibility. While he had discussed the prublum with .
a Carrier representative, the Carrier fairly concluded that
the Claimant was remiss in his duty.
Having determined the Claimant's guilt, the Carrier
properly considered his past disciplinary record. There were
two previous instances of the imposition of 30 demerits within
the previous 27 months. The resulting penalty herein was
fully warranted.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Y
HERBERT L. MARX, JR., Chairman and Neutral Member
E.R. MYERS, Carrier Member
C.F. FOOSE, Employee Member
New York, N. Y.
DATED;
December 17, 1985