PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4104
Case No. 43
PARTIES TO DISPUTE: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way
Employees
VS.
Burlington Northern Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
1. "The fifteen (15) day suspension imposed upon Machine
Operator, G. T. Denny, for alleged 'violation of Rules 570 and 576
of the Burlington Northern Safety Rules' was without just and
sufficient cause and in violation of the Agreement (System File 1
Gr GMWA 85-5-27).
2. The Claimant's record shall be
cleared of
the charge -
leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss
suffered."
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute concerns a fifteen day suspension
assessed by Carrier against Claimant, Machine Operator G.T. Denny.
On October 13, 1984, Claimant was due to report for duty at 7:30
a.m. for overtime work at Downer's Grove, Illinois. However,
Claimant did not report for work at that time. On Sunday, October -
14, 1984, Claimant reported for overtime duty and worked twelve
hours. On Monday, October 15, 1984, the Claimant obtained
permission to seek medical attention for his illness at the
Winnebago County Department of Public Health. -
As a result of his October 13th absence, Carrier conducted a
hearing on October 26, 1984. On November 19, 1984, Claimant was
notified that he was being assessed fifteen days suspension for
"failure to comply with instructions... thereby being absent from
duty."
The Organization asserts that Claimant was unable to work on
October 13, 1984 because of illness. It states that testimony
reveals that he went to the emergency room to be tested for illness -
. - L-41 oq-U3
and was told that he had to go to the Health Department which was
closed until Monday, October 15, 1984. At the trial, it maintains,
he submitted medical documentation supporting his testimony. The
Organization contends that claimant attempted to call Roadmaster
Cline two times prior to his starting time but received no answer.
It argues that Claimant was specifically instructed by Roadmaster
Cline to call his office whenever he was unable to protect his
assignment. The Organization avers that testimony of Cline reveals
that he was not present in his office that entire morning. In the
organization's view, Claimant attempted to contact Cline on October
13, 1984 and, through no fault of his own, was unable to do so.
Accordingly, the organization asks that the claim be sustained.
Carrier, on the other hand, points out that if Cline was not
present in his office, a 24-hour yardmaster could reach him by
radio when telephone calls concerned him. It asserts that there
is no evidence to support Claimant's allegation that he attempted
to call two times. Under these circumstances, Carrier argues that
it properly found claimant guilty as charged. It asks that the
claim be denied.
After reviewing the record evidence, the Board finds that
there is sufficient competent evidence to support disciplinary
action against Claimant. However, claimant was specifically
instructed to contact Roadmaster Cline should he be absent from
duty, and did attempt to do so on two occasions. The fact that
Cline was not present in his office at the time is not the fault
of the Claimant. However, it is clear that he did not receive
permission to be absent on that day, nor did he attempt to contact
Cline any time later that morning.
Under the circumstances, the discipline shall be reduced to
a ten day suspension. Accordingly, the claim is sustained to the
extent indicated in the opinion.
FINDINGS: The Public Law Board No. 4104 upon the whole record and
all of the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employees involved in this dispute
are respectively Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934;
That the Public Law Board No. 4104 has the jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein: and
That the Agreement was violated.
AWARD: Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the opinion.
P. Swanson, Employe Membe E. Ka inen, Carrier Member
Mart' F Scheinman, Neutral Member
124 /Ja