PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 45.30
 
PRRT~E;O L~ISPUTB: 
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers .
   
9s.
  
Burlington 
Northern Railroad 
Company
 
TLMFNT 
off' 
CLAIM: claim of Engineer L. T. Vaughn, Memphis,.
  
Tennessee,- fox reinstatemeat to service
-  with full seniority and vacation rights
  
unimpaired, for payment of all time loss
  
from April 28, 1987, until reinstated 
to
  
the service of the Carrier, payment for
  
attending the investigation conducted on
  
April 14, 19$7: removal of the discipline
  
from his personal record and restitution
  
of any loss of fringe benefits.
F1NRIDTGB; After a complete review 
of the record in the 
submissions
- and arguments of 
both parties, it is the decision of this
Hoard that the 
Carrier violated 
Article 32, Section
A(6licl of the Engineer's Agrggment Schedule by failing
to ". . arrange for the presence of each witness who
has material knowledge 
of 
the incident" at the
.investigation hearing. The facts in the matter establish
that the Carrier did not require the attendance at the
investigation hearing of the train dispatcher who had
material knowledoe of tZe incident. Instead, the train
dispatcher was informed by the Carrier that his presence
had been requested and that he could attend but would not
be paid for his time of expense, "unless the applicable
schedule rule provides otherwise". This statement is
sufficiently vague to cause serious doubt on the part of
the train dispntchar about the necessity of his
attendance. Moreover, at the investigation the Carrier
introduced a signed statement of the dispatcher dealing
with the alleged infraction--thus, establishing the
materiality of his evidence from the 
Carrier's
perspective. =t is the ,finding of this 
Board that the
Carrier's handling o£ the witness violated the claimant's
rights to confront the charges made against him cad to
crossexamine his accusers.
The remaining matter to be addressed by the Hoard is the
Claimant's personal injury settlement with the Carrier,
which iboluded his resignation from service. In his
signed release and resignation, the claimant specifically
exempted from release this claim and now argues that he
is ®utitled to both hack pay resulting from the
suspension and restoration of his seniority. The soardcannot discern logic or evidence to support the argument
PLH 4530
Case No. 2
that the Carrier, on seoUring hips resignation with a
financial consideration, opened to him the' opportunity
for reinstatemeAt through the arbitration process. This
portion of the claim, therefore, is denied.
The chill is sustained, in part. The Claimant will be made whole
£or all :osses accruing between the effective date of suspension
and the 
date his resignation release was effective- He also will
be paid 'or attending the investigation 
oh 
April 3.4, 198,x? 
H
rarmains permanently separated from 
the service of 
the Carrier.
Carrier is directed to make this award effective within 30 days.
' .' William h. McKee
'  Chairman arid Neutral
$. . Wat:an W. M. Schubert
For the O;Qauization 
For the carrier
Dated Feb:·uarY 27. 1999
Fort Wort]., 
Texas