- SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3729
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
"CARRIER"
*
-and- * CASE NO. 15
*
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF * AWARD N0. 13
WAY EMPLOYEES
"ORGANIZATION"*
*
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Claim of the Brotherhood (CR-1377-D) that:
(a) The Carrier violated Rule 29 of the current
Scheduled Agreement when disciplining the
Claimant, B&B
Mechanic W
.E. Oudinot, in an
arbitrary and capricious
manner.
(b) The Claimant shall be exonerated of the charges
and compensated for all lost wages, including
overtime, and any lost benefits resulting from
this disciplinary action shall be restored.
This claim arose when the Carrier charged W.E. Oudinot,
hereinafter the Claimant, with violating Carrier Safety Rules and
being accident prone. The specific charge, contained in a notice
February 7, 1985, was as follows:
PLB-3729 Award No. 13
"Being accident prone in that you had
forty (40) personal injuries during the
period September 30, 1948 to January 21,
1985, the date of your latest injury,
which you reported to E.J. Peterson, B&B
Supervisor at approximately 8:00 AM,
January 22, 1985 at Harrisburg, PA.
Violation General Rule 5 of S-7-C,
Conrail Safety Rules for the Maintenance
of Way Employees, which resulted in your
personal injury on January 21, 1985."
General Rule 5 of S-7-C of Carrier Safety Rules for Maintenance
of Way Employees states as follows:
When handling windows, doors, drawers, covers,
lids or other hinged devices, use handles or
knobs provided and be certain that the device
is properly secured before placing any portion
of your body into the opening. Do not open
more than one filing or tool cabinet drawer at
a time. Close all devices carefully, as soon as
the purpose for which it was opened is ended.
Avoid pinch points.
The hearing was held on February 21, 1985. The Claimant
was present and represented by the Organization. By notice
dated March 4, 1985, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he
had been found guilty of the charges and assessed discipline
of discharge. A claim was then filed on behalf of the Claimant.
By
letter dated November 1, 1985, the Carrier stated that
the Claimant "shall be restored to service solely on a leniency
basis, with all time held out of service to apply as discipline."
The Claimant was restored to service on November 25, 1985.
By
letter dated December 2, 1985, the Organization notified the
Carrier that it would proceed forward with the claim to "press
for all monetary loss, credits, benefits and fringes."
This Board heard oral argument concerning the claim on
PLB-3729 Award No. 13
February 13, 1986. The Claimant was notified of the Board
meeting by certified mail, but did not attend.
The Claimant, a B&B Mechanic, entered the Carrier's
service in 1948. On January 21, 1985, the date of the incident
giving rise to this claim, the Claimant suffered an on-duty injury.
While the Claimant was attempting to close the door of a bunk
car, the wind closed the door in his face. The hinge of the
door started swinging and hit the Grievant in his face, causing a
laceration above his left eye. In compliance with Carrier rules,
the Claimant promptly reported the injury. It did not cause the
Claimant to miss any work.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Carrier maintains that the record contains substantial
evidence establishing the Claimant's guilt of both charges. The
Claimant has reported 40 injuries during his employment with the
Carrier, far more than other similarly situated employees. Other
Boards have held that accident proneness is a valid charge that
may be disciplined by discharge.' Moreover, the claim should not
be before the Board, as the Claimant was reinstated based on
leniency.
The Organization asserts that there is insufficient evidence
to support either charge. The Claimant received discriminatory
treatment, as he was disciplined for properly reporting his injury
of January 21, 1985, while a foreman who testified he did the same
thing that caused the Claimant's injury was not disciplined. Furthermore, the Claimant did not receive a fair and impartial hearing.
The Carrier improperly considered the Claimant's medical reports,
dating back to 1948, in an attempt to find him "accident prone."
PLB-3729 Award No. 13
Finally, the claim is properly before the Board, as the Organization never accepted leniency as a basis for the Claimant's reinstatement.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
The claim shall be denied. The record contains substantial
evidence to support the Carrier's finding of the Claimant's guilt.
on January 21, 1985, the Claimant violated General Rule 5 of S-7-C,
Conrail Safety Rules, which resulted in his personal injury. The
Claimant was not treated discriminatorily, as there is no evidence
that the foreman or any other employee injured themselves while
opening the door. The record also contains substantial statistical
evidence that the Claimant is "accident prone," as he has sustained
an inordinate amount of injuries over the years when compared to
other employees with similar seniority. Precedent exists in the
railroad industry for finding "accident proneness" to be a legitimate charge. As the Claimant was returned to service in November,
1985, the Board shall not set aside the discipline imposed.
AWARD
Claim denied.
.~.5'.f?E.
S'.E.
sacHH-EI-T
Neutral Member
,', 'i
~:~s: c,~-G-~ -
ZZ
R. O
E
LL . CA SESE
Carrifr Member 3 ganization Member
-4-