` Case No. 44
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4338
PARTIES) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
TO
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
(1) The dismissal assessed System Gang Foreman Ricky R. Crespin
for alleged violation of various company rules as indicated in
Hearing Officer B. A. Moser's letter of October 12, 1989 was arbi
trary, capticious and unwarranted.
(2) Provided the charges were sustained appropriately, which they
were not, the discipline assessed wasmuch too severe.
(3) In light of (1) and (2) above the claimant's record shall be
cleared of the discipline referred to in Part (1) and he shall be
reinstated with his seniority and all- other rights restored unim
paired, including those specified in Article V, Section 5 of the
December 1, 1981 National Agreement, and he shall be made whole for
all losses sustained in this regard.
FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No._4338 -finds-that the partiesherein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of-the Railway
Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.
In this dispute the claimant was notified to attend an investigation at Pocatello, Idaho on September 18, 1989 to develop the
facts and determine his responsibility on charges of allegedly
failing to properly protect live outfit cars on Gang 9010 after -moving Gang 9010 on or about Monday, August 21, 1989 from near
Cache Junction, Utah to Evanston, Wyoming, which indicated a
possible violation of General Rules A, B, D, I and Rules 1552
and 1553 of Union Pacific Railroad Maintenance of Way Rules,
effective April 1, 1988.
The investigation was postponed and was held on October 2, 1989.
Pursuant to the investigation the claimant was dismissed from the
service of the Carrier.
The transcript of record contains 100 pages of testimony. The
Board has reviewed the testimony of record, as well as the exhibits submitted by the parties. -
After reviewing all of the evidence there is no question but that
the Carrier had sufficient evidence to find that the claimant violated the rules of the Carrier, and such justified serious
discipline. Under the circumstances there is no justification
to overrule the decision of the Carrier.
338
AWARD NO. 44
· Page 2
AWARD: Claim denied.
Prestos J. Moore, Chairman
/I
? Za.-