r~
AWARD NO. 4D
Case No. 40
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4338
PARTIES) UNION PACIFIC--RAILROAD COMPANY
TO )
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The letter of-reprimand assessed as discipline to California
Division Pumper H. B. Allred for alleged violation of various com
pany rules as indicated in Mr. W. S. Oakden's letter of July 17,
1989, was arbitrary, capricious and unwarranted. -
2. The claimant's record shall be cleared of the discipline re
ferred to in Part 1 hereof.
FINDINGS:- This Public Law Board No. 4338 finds that the parties -
herein are-Carrierand Employee within
the
meaning of the Railway
Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.
In this dispute the claimant was notified by letter dated June 21,
1989 to attend a formal investigation to develop the facts and
determine responsibility, if any, concerning damage which occurred
to Balch Well No. 3 on the mroning of May 30, 1989 when he allegedly
failed to open valve to discharge water into the tree line as previously instructed which resulted in damage to new equipment, and
alleged failure-to report such damage, indicating violation of General Rules A, B, I, and M as contained in the Maintenance of Way
Book effective April 1, 1988 and General
Rules
607(2), 609, 611,
621, Safety Instructions 400-0 and 4002 As-contained in Safety, Radio
and General Rules for All, Employees, Form 7908, revised April, 1985.
Pursuant to the investigation the claimant was found guilty, and his _
personal record was assessed with a letter of reprimand.
J. L. Parker, Manager Bridge Maintenance, testified that he had instructed the whole pumping gang at Kelso on both Wells No. 8 and No.
9 to make sure the valves were open when they started the pumps. He
testified the damage to the wells was approximately $16,000.
Mr. Parker also testified that the claimant's negligence in failing
to open the valve to discharge water into a tree line resulted in the
pump being totally destroyed. He testified that the new pump had been
installed on April 4, or approximately two months earlier.
Manager Parker then testified that H. J. Taylor told him that he and
the claimant were working together that day, and the claimant failedto open the valve. Mr. Parker testified that just by looking at the
valve you could determine if it was open or closed, but he was not
sure if the valve was a stem valve.
L(33 S
_ Award No. 40
Page 2
Pumper Foreman Wolford testified that it was not a stem valve, and
you could not determine by looking at it if it was closed or not.
He stated- that when the valve was opened going down the main line
to water trees, there is no more water coming out of that discharge
line, and this is an indication the valve is either open or closed.
Pumper H. J. Taylor testified regarding his own duties and the duties
of the claimant. He stated the claimant would open the discharge
line and close the main valve line and then reverse the procedure
when they got ready to go back down the line and open the main line
and close the discharge line.
Mr. Taylor also testified that he did not know if the claimant opened
the main valve or not. He stated he was taking care of the motor, and
neither he or the claimant checked to see if there was any water coming out the tee which goes to the ditch to be watered along the trees.
He testified there was a fence around the well, but part of the fence
was down, and people driving along the road could have walked in.
The claimant testified he opened the main valve and shut the discharge
line. The claimant had been a pumper for 34 years. The claimant received no discipline but did receive a letter of reprimand forhis
failure to observe the condition of the equipment.
The Board finds there is no justification to remove the letter of
reprimand.
AWARD: Claim denied.
Preston . Moore, Chairman
2 2