PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 4426

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

"Organization"

VS.

CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY, INC.

"Carrier"

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

Claim of the Brotherhood that:

Award No. 1

(a) Carrier's dismissal of Claimant D. M. Poissant was arbitrary and capricious, being based upon vague and unproven charges, at a hearing which was not held in a timely manner.


(b) Carrier shall restore Claimant Poissant to service,
with full seniority and vacation benefits, and compensate
Claimant for all lost wages, including overtime, as
provided for in Rule 27-A of the Scheduled Agreement.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

Claimant, D. M. Poissant, was dismissed by letter of July

19, 1985, which stated as follows:

This is to advise you that you are dismissed from the service of the Company for violation of "G" of the UCOR.



Also for violation of Rule 3000 of the Central Vermont Railway Safety Rules, which states:'





















Upon being notified of his dismissal, Claimant requested a hearing, which was held on August 14, 1985. On August 22, 1985, Carrier informed Claimant by certified mail that his dismissal was confirmed. Appeal was made through various levels of the grievance procedure, and was declined at all levels. The hearing before this Board took place on February 29, 1988. Claimant was informed of the hearing before this Board by certified mail, but he did not appear.

Events triggering the Claimant's discharge took place on
July 18, 1985. On that day, the Claimant was foreman of a track
gang consisting of seven members. The gang was secretly observed
between the hours of 0900 and 1640 by the Carrier's Chief of
Police, J. B. Ovitt, and a private investigator. The Carrier
engaged in this surveillance because of information received
anonymously concerning alleged misconduct by the crew. As a
result of activities allegedly observed by Ovitt and the
2
7
.o

investigator on July 18, and information obtained in the resulting investigation, the Carrier believed that the Claimant had broken the above quoted Rules by smoking marijuana while on duty, purchasing and drinking beer while on duty, and encouraging others to drink by announcing that beer was in a truck.

The Carrier contends that the allegations against the Claimant are supported by substantial evidence in the record and that the claim should therefore be dismissed. The Organization maintains that the Claimant is not guilty as charged and that the Carrier committed numerous investigative and procedural errors that warrant setting aside the discipline imposed.



The record contains ample evidence to establish that the Claimant is guilty as charged. The claimant's offenses were particularly inappropriate, as he was a foreman responsible for ensuring that the track gang conducted itself in a responsible manner. There are no arguments of mitigation that can successfully be raised on the Claimant's behalf. In these circumstances, the Carrier committed no investigative or procedural errors that warrant setting aside the discipline imposed. Accordingly, despite the organization's strenuous arguments, the claim must be denied.


3
AWARD

Claim denied.

L9___
W. E. LA RUE,
Organization Member

J, ELCH,
C ri r Member

S. E. BUCHHEIT, Neutral Member