Parties
to the
Dispute
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 3765
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
OF WAY EMPLOYES
VS.
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Claim appealing disqualification of J.
Master as Tamper Technician I, as a
result of investigation held on November
21, 1994, in Pontiac, Michigan.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Case No.: 72
Claimant J. Master was employed by Carrier in July
1977. On October 25, 1994, he was working as a Tamper
Technician operating a Plasser Roadmaster 2000 when one of
the workheads fell and struck an interlocker diamond. There
was approximately $25,000 worth of damage to the equipment.
As a result of this accident, Claimant was sent the following notice to attend an investigation into the matter:
,3 yG5- 72.
2
This investigation is to determine your
responsibility, if any, for alleged negligence as Tamper Operator Technician I
of improperly securing of righthand workhead while operating Plasser Roadmaster
2000 (Rdmstr #1) at Warner Interlocker,
Shore Line Subdivision, Mileage 18.7, on
Tuesday, October 25, 1994, at approximately
1145 Hours, which resulted in the righthand workhead striking the Warner Interlocker diamond causing approximately $25,000
in damages.
A hearing in the matter was held on November 21, 1994.
As a result of that hearing, Claimant was found guilty as
charged and disqualified as a Tamper Technician I.
This Board has reviewed the record and transcript of
the investigation in detail. As a result of that review, we
conclude that Carrier acted in an arbitrary and capricious
manner when it disqualified Claimant as a result of the
October 25, 1994, accident. There is no probative evidence
in this record to support the notion that Claimant was in
any way responsible for the workhead dropping down and
striking the diamond. Numerous Carrier witnesses testified
that Claimant was a good operator, performed all the required safety checks, and had had no problems with operating
the machine during his year on duty. There was also testimony in the record that technical problems with the machine
had occurred in the past.
3 7G,S- 7;L.
3
In meeting its burden of proof, Carrier must base its
case on solid evidence. It appears that it rushed to judgment in order to place the blame for a damage bill of over
$21,000. That action was inappropriate in this instance.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
R.E. Dennis,
Neutral Member
~R. J. O'Brien, D. Bartholomay,
Carrier Member E loye Member
February 20, 1996
Date of Adoption