~' Award No. 183
Case No.188
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4244
ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
AND
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 1. That Carrier's decision to suspend Western
Region Maintenance of Way Employee S. C. Myers was unjust.
2. That the Carrier now compensate Claimant Myers and pay him for all
wages lost beginning March 28, 1995, continuing forward.
3. That the Carrier violated the Agreement particularly but not limited to Rule
13 and Appendix 11, because the Carrier did not introduce substantial, credible
evidence that proved the Claimant violated the ruled enumerated in their
decision.
FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 4244 (the "Board") finds that the parties
herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
amended. Further, the Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject
matter involved.
In this dispute, S. C. Myers (the "Claimant") was notified to attend a formal
investigation on July 28, 1995, concerning his alleged absence without authority,
and alleged insubordination with Roadmaster Truitt, in possible violation of Rules
1.6, 1.13, and 1.15 of the Safety and General Rules for All Employees, Form
2629 standard, effective September 30, 1994, and as revised. The investigation
was postponed and eventually canceled. However, the Claimant was sent a
letter dated August 29, 1995, advising him that he would be held from service
until he had satisfactorily complied with the Carrier's EAP counselor's
instructions. He was further advised that his failure to comply with these
instructions would subject him to disciplinary action.
4
n
q2q4
'
Award No. 183
Page No. 2
In summary, the Carrier argued that the Claimant signed an acceptance of
discipline on -January 24, 1995, and agreed to a suspension from December 28,
1994, to March 27, 1995. He further agreed to contact Employer Assistance
Program - Counselor Jim Harrell and comply with his instructions. As of July 28,
1995, the Claimant failed to comply with Mr. Harrell's instructions. Thus, the
Claimant's refusal to comply with the terms and conditions of his acceptance and
waiver dated January 24, 1994, resulted in the Claimant being withheld from
service since March 28, 1995.
The Organization argued to the Board in summary that the terms of the
accepted suspension provided that the Claimant would be reinstated to service
on March 28, 1995. As of May 25, 1995, when the claim was filed, the Carrier
had not allowed the Claimant to mark up nor was the Claimant advised of any
further suspension. Thus, the Carrier had no cause to withhold the Claimant from
service.
The Board has reviewed the record in this dispute. It is the Board's
opinion that the Claimant had a responsibility to comply with the Carrier's
instructions contained in the January 24, 1995 waiver of discipline, as well as
instructions from the Carrier's EAP counselor. It is clear from the record that the
Claimant did not do so. Thus, there is no basis to sustain the claim.
AWARD:
Claim denied.
ILL
AI J. 'sher
airman an eutral Mem r
Clare ce F. Foose Gre Griffin
Organization Member Carrier Member