Case No. 10
PUBLIC LAW BOARD N0. 4823
PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
TO ) versus
DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Carrier`s decision to remove New Mexico
Division Trackman V. V. Tercero-from service=was_unjust.
2. That the Carrier now reinstate C1airnantTercero___
with seniority, vacation, all- benefitrights-unimpaired and
pay for all wage loss as
a
result of investigation held
February 9, 1990, continuing forward and/or otherwise made
whole, because the Carrier did not introduce -substantial,
creditable (sic.) evidence that proved that the -Claimant
violated the rules enumerated in their decision, and even if
Claimant violated the rules enumerated in thedecision;
permanent removal from service is extremeand harsh
discipline under the circumstances-."
FINDINGS:
This Public Law Board No. 4823 finds that the parties
herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has
jurisdiction.
On November 27, 1989, Carrier's Division Manager wrote
the claimant notifying him of, formal investigation to be
held concerning report alleging that claimant was arrested
for possession of marijuana on or about October
27,
1989,
"resulting in your alleged failure to report any misconduct
or negl-igence affecting the interest of tile company and
possible subjecting of Santa Fe Railroad to criticism or
loss of good will."
Following the investigation, carrier-found the claimant
responsible for violation of Rules .D and L of_Safety and
General Rules for All Employees, And he was removed from
service as a-result thereof.
During the formal investigation it was developed that
the claimant had indeed been arrested for, possession of
marijuana-on October 27, 1989, however, the charges were- -
subsequently dropped.
-
Case No. 10 Page 2 AWARD NO. 10
While the disposition of alleged violations of the law
is not always controlling insofar as concerns related
alleged railroad rule violations, in this particular
instance the Carrier has failed-to-meet it'sburden of
proof.
AWARD: Claim sustained.
ORDER: -
carrier is directed to comply with the Award within
thirty (30) days from the date shown thereon.
G. Michael Gar ton, Chair an
Em oyeeembe --
Carrier Member '
Dated at Chicago, IL