PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4402
PARTIES ) BROTHERHOOD
OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
TO )
DISPUTE ) BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM
1. The thirty (30) days' suspension imposed upon Machine Operator
G. Valencia for alleged "... violation of Rule 351 of the Burlington
Northem Railroad Rules of the Maintenance of Way for his failure
to insure that machine BNX 54-0092 was operated within the limits
specified in Track and Time Permit #11 on July 31, 1986" was
arbitrary, without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of
unproven charges (System File #1 Gr./GMWA 86-12-22A).
2. The Claimant's record shall be cleared of the charge leveled against
him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered.
OPINION OF BOARD
As a result of charges dated August 1, 1986, investigation held on August 12,
1986 and by letter dated September 10, 1986, Claimant, a machine operator since 1975,
was suspended for 30 days for violating Rule 351 by failing to insure that his machine
operated within track and time permit limits on July 31, 1986.
On July 31, 1986 Claimant, Welder R. D. Brawner and Foreman S. A. Wilhelm
were instructed to move Tamper BNX-54-0092 from Downers Grove to Cicero for use in
the departure yard Claimant operated the machine, Brawner obtained the track and time
permits and functioned as a pilot and Wilhelm was in charge of the movement. The end of
the relevant track and time permit was the west absolute signal at Highlands. When the end
of the limit of that permit was reached, Claimant did not stop the tamper but continued
beyond the Limit by approximately 200 feet Claimant then returned the tamper to a point
within the designated limit.
While Claimant received a 30 day suspension, Brawner received a letter of censure
and Wilhelm was not disciplined.
PLB 4402; ..ward No. 16
G. Valencia
Page 2
We find substantial evidence in the record to support the Carrier's conclusion that
Claimant violated the track and time permit as charged. The record establishes that
Claimant operated the tamper beyond the designated limit. In doing so, Claimant violated
the permit
However, we find that the amount of discipline imposed was arbitrary. First, we
note that another employee in charge of obtaining the permit and functioning as a pilot
received only a censure and the foreman in charge of the movement received no discipline.
Second, we note that although Claimant should have known where to stop the tamper. the
record demonstrates an element of confusion concerning the given instructions.
Specifically, the record shows that the instructions given to Claimant may not have been
sufficiently precise concerning the specific location of the end of the permit in relation to the
signal bridge. We shall therefore reduce the suspension to a censure and Claimant shall be
compensated accordingly.
AWARD
Claim sustained in part. The 30 day suspension shall be reduced to a censure and
Claimant shall be compensated accordingly.
auN..
L4
Ed~wim 1-1
Neutral Member
.. J. Kallincn
Carrier Member
Denver, Colorado
August 11, 1989
Swanson
Organization Member