PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 3845 -_
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE
Brotherhood of Maintenance= ) `" '
of Way Employees-_- ) -_
and ) Case No. 16
Award No. 16
Norfolk and Western Railway )
Company (Lake Region) )
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
"Claim of the System Committee o£ the Brotherhood that:
(1) The disqualification of David M. Gates as a-.____-_
hoisting engineer was without just and sufficient
cause and in violation of the Agreement.- _-
(2) Claimant David M. Gates shall have his seniority as _
a hoisting engineer reinstated and he shall be
compensated for
all
wage loss suffered due to his
disqualification."
OPINION OF THE BOARD -_ -
Claimant was disqualified as a hoisting engineer after
an investigation which concluded that he was responsible for -
significant damage to one of Carrier's cranes on or about June 7,
1983. A broken three-quarter inch plug allowed all the gear `
lubricant to drain out o£ the crane's rear end housing. -
Subsequent operation of the crane resulted in the destruction of
certain bushings, pinions and gears whose replacement cost
Carrier $6,627.04 plus down-time. Claimant acknowledged at.--.-..-_:
hearing that he was aware of his duty as operator of^the crane-to'
check the oil and lubricate the machinery on a daily basis.-
Carrier's repairman testified that the broken drain plug
was visible
on
a walkaround inspection of the crane but Claimant
contends he did not see it. While there is no evidence of record
which establishes when the drain plug was
broken,
it may
reasonably be inferred from the nature of the damage that the
crane had been operated for more than one day on insufficient
lubricant:- Claimant testified that the last time he checked the
oil in the crane was just before it left Indiana, aY'date some
weeks prior to discovery of the damage. There is convincing
evidence in the record that Claimant's negligence was a major
contributing factor in causing that damage and his removal from--the position of hoisting engineer cannot, therefore, be said to
be an abuse of Carrier's discretion.
Lastly, Employes contend that the letter of charge was
"vague and brief
..."
and
"...
not specific," depriving Claimant
of a full opportunity to prepare his defenses. The letter of
charge is indeed brief, but it is not vague, identifying as it
does the equipment in question, the person who discovered the
damage, and both the date and place of the discovery. Given the
fact that Claimant was present at the scene of the discovery of
the damage, it is difficult to imagine what further information
he would need in order to prepare his defense. The Board
concludes that Claimant was given a fair and impartial hearing
and afforded full due process in conformity with the collective
bargaining- agreement.--_- - _
AWARD-_ .._ _ _
Claim denied:
E. T. Herbert, Neutral Member
W. L. Allman, Jr., Carrier Member D. . Bartholomay, Em oye Member_
Date:
19~"'I - . __
- 3 -