PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 4381: C
ASE No. 28
SOD OF MAnqIERANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
AND
= N
RarrxxiAn
CMTM
5XMTU= OF THE
1. The ten (10) day s
uspension of Machine Curator G.K. Stluka ...
for violation of General Rule 'A' of the Rules of the Maintenance of Way Department, Cperatang Department and Rule 271 of
special instructions by not
clue
CC Permit No. 7 on time
issued to you on January 31, 7986.' is excessive and without
merit on
the basis
of unproven charges (System File
B-Y-304/HvP7B 86-5-7C) ..
2. Claimant shall be e~.ted by clearing his record of the
charge leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all
wage loss suffered.
7?IZOF THE HQARD
On January 31, 1986, the Claimant, Mr. G.K. Stluka was issued a CDC Track
Permit to operate his snow clearing machine between. the hours of 9:20
A.M. and 4:01 P.M. Mr. Stlulm completed his work at approximately 3:30
P.M., but he did not clear his track and time permit with the control
operator. Mr. Stluka was located by the control operator at 9:50 P.M.,
at which time the permit was cleared.
As
a result of this sequence of
events, a train was delayed between 6:10 P.M. on January 31 and 3:01 A.M.
on February 1, 1986. Subsequently, Mr. Stluka was charged with allegedly
failing to report clear on the permit, and was issued a ten (10) days
suspension.
Before moving to the
merits of this case, certain procedural
issues
must
be decided. The investigating officer was not obligated to sequester
witnesses,
as requested by the Crganization's representative. However in
denying that request, the investigating officer took the risk that the
credibility of
witnesses could
be called into question. However, upon a
reading of the record we find no basis to ccnclude that the testimony of
witnesses was tainted or that the failure to sequester
witnesses
prejudiced Mr. Stluka.
Additionally,
we
find
no basis in the record to
conclude that the investigating officer harass or threatened the
claimant. We find that Mr. Stluka was provided a fair and iupart;al
hearing.
As to the central issue, we find that Mr. Stluka knew or should have
known that he was obligated to notify the control operator when he was
clear of the
permit's limits. The week before this incident, 7r. =uka
had cleared such permits on three (3) occasions. Moreover, during'
the
cf 381
'h'-~
P
afternoon of January 31st, Mr. Stluka acknowledged to a co-worker that
the permit needed to be cleared.
Me discipline in this matter was assessed
in
a reasonable and routine.
manner ... the suspension started on the day after the date of the letter
assessing the discipline and continued for ten (10) consecutive calendar
days. Mr. Stluka chose to exercise his seniority for a position that
rnexssitated a considerable ccmmute bet,;een his home and his work
location. There is no basis in the record to corraude that the Carrier
intentionally sought to exacerbate the impact of the discipline.
Finally, the Crgani.zation has not cmvirringly argued that the ten (10)
days suspension is excessive or harsh. in the absence of such a showing,
this Heard will net set
aside the
discipline assigned by the Carrier.
Claim denied.
Ronald L. Miller
Chairman and Neutral Member
Marine Timberman G. Glover
Carrier Member Organization Member
Date