NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARQ
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4370
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
AWARD NO. 62
Case No. 62
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(1) The Carrier violated the provisions of the
current Agreement when the discipline it assessed to six
(6) B&B employes was arbitrary, capricious and on the
basis of unproven charges and in violation of Rule 40 of
the Burlington Northern 1982 Agreement.
(2) The Carrier will now be required to overturn
the discipline received by the Claimants with all seniority and other rights unimpaired and compensated for all
wage loss suffered, and that all references to the discipline assessed as a result of this investigation be
stricken from their records.
F I N D I N G S
The Claimants include a Foreman and five members of his crew
engaged in an assignment to remove a piling from a creek bed near
Bridge 4.42. The Foreman determined that the piling should be
"pulled" by use of a large crane. During the unsuccessful attempt
to remove the piling, a piece of the rigging flew off and struck
one of the crew members (the Crane Operator) in the face.
w
The Carrier determined, after preliminary investigation and
from testimony at the investigative hearing afforded the six
Claimants, that there were significant lapses in the manner in
which the assignment was undertaken. This included but was not
limited to the Foreman's failure to conduct a preliminary job
briefing with the crew as a group prior to undertaking the "pull".
The Foreman and the crew members indicated there had been some
individual briefing prior to and during the action. The Carrier
concluded that this did not constitute the job briefing specifically required under the Carrier's safety procedures.
The organization contends that the discipline was improper and
based on "unproven charges". The Board does not agree. The Board
finds there was sufficient cause for discipline, given the serious
consequences which might have ensued from the failure to operate in
a fully safe manner; indeed, an injury to one of the crew members
did result.
As to the severity of penalty, all claimants received an Entry
of Censure on their records, and two of the crew members also
received five-day disciplinary suspensions. The Board has no basis
to find these penalties inappropriate.
The Foreman, as supervisor of the crew, received a 10-day
disciplinary suspension. His discipline also included "loss of
Foreman's rights". Since no date is indicated as to the length of
such loss of rights, the action can only be assumed to be permanent.
-2-
.- L43-7
o-G~-
The Foreman's record shows that he has held this position
continuously since 1981, with no indication of previous disciplinary action. The Board finds the permanent loss of Foreman status
to be unduly harsh under the circumstances. The Award will modify
the Foreman's discipline to direct his reinstatement to Foreman
status after one year (March 8, 1997), upon his written bid when a
vacancy in such position occurs and his seniority permits (but
without displacement of a currently serving Foreman).
A W A R
Claim sustained as to the Foreman Claimant to the extent
provided in the Findings. Claim denied as to the five crew
members.
r
HERBERT L. MARX, Jr., Neutral Referee
NEW YORK, NY
DATED: January 20, 1997
-3-