COMPANY CASE NO. 9303253


P QT _8 = THE D2B0=s UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY and _ BROTHERHOOD OP LOCOlwt'IVS mqGINB=S

 ssxT~o~r . og cvaacs'

      Request the dismissal of Engineer J. 8. Van Morn be expunged fr= bin personal. record and pay for all lost time with all seniority and vacation rights restored unimpaired


o2no2 r soap: .

 Claimant J. E. Van Noxn has been employed by Carrier for approximately twenty-three (33) years. Claimant's "involvement" is PZSp constitutes the gravamen of this dispute. on June 3, 1993, Claimant reported a. personal injury report with regard to "ear inflammation" allegedly resulting from using "Carrier provided ear protection." Shortly after Claimant submitted his report, he received a call from the crew dispatcher advising him that he. was to attend a safety meeting scheduled for 1:00 p. m. that day. Claimaas declined to attend as he on grounds he had "already committed to help a friend." At approximately 4:00 pm
                                                U -7


                                            AWAED No. 8

            . NMB CASE No. 119

                          UNION CASE NO. PR-J.E.-Van Horn

                          CM01PANY CASE NO. 9303253

                          2


that same afternoon Claimant received a certified letter requesting his 'participation in a formal Safety Training Session scheduled for 8:00 a. m. June 10, 1993."
      Mr. Van Hora.coatacted Carrier with regard to the

correspondence, and the Safety session was rescheduled for June
 10, 1993. With regard to that meeting, Claimant stated that he
 "just thought it was a safety Conference with Mr. Harris and Mr.
 Hill to discuss me coming back to work after having been off
 awhile with as on-duty injury.' According to Claimant, Carrier
 never explained that there was a Progressive Intervention Safety

Program,.-in effect for,him, nor did claimant receive the requisite I

P=SP.guidebook or sign off on the PISP checklist.
 on August 7, 1993 Claimant was working as a through freight engineer at Pocatello, Idaho. While dismounting from the lead locomotive, Claimant allegedly struck and injured his right elbow on the snow plow of lead locomotive UP 9386. Mr. Van go= filed the appropriate injury reports and left the property. Carrier maintaiaed_that the report of that latest accident "triggered" Phase V of. PISA. When Mr.. Van Horn returned to work on August 10, 1993. MTO Argyle presented him with a Notice of Investigation articulating. three (33 issues upon which the hearing had been predicated:
 A9AiD N0. 8 r
                                  DIM CASE NO. 119

                                  UNION CASE NO. PR-J.E._ Van Horn

                                  COMPANY CASE NO. 9303253

                                  3


                (1l in connection with the alleged injury as reported by you on August .7, 1883 while you were worWnng as .Engineer of twin CLCOCV 02. at Poeauilo. Idaho,


                (21 in connection with your alleged fallure to comply with instructions and/or rules presented during your Joint Safety Conformme Formal Training Session Phase IV, hold June 10. 1993, and other training sessions held as provided by Carrier's Progreaaive.intervmrtion Safety Program, and.


                (31 To review your personal injury record m data while you have bean unployed by Union Pacific RaHrosd Company . regarding your alleged Injury/accident pronenoss.'

        The hearing was originally scheduled for August 7.3, 1993, however, Claimant requested, and was granted a postponement until August 19, 1993. ,On August 27, 1993. Superintendent Farr notified Claimant that he had been dismissed from service having been found .guilty as follows:


                Mess findings are in violation of General Ruin B. D. and I. and Opradng Rules 4(C). 804. 805 and 808 as em~tained in tM Generw :Code of Operating Rules, revised October 2$. 1989. and Rules 4000. 4001. 4004. 4049(A). 4050 and 4057 (AI of Fonm.7808 Safety, Radio. and General Rules For Ali Employees. revised October 19&9.'

        The O rganization protested Carrier's assessed discipline, stating at the outset that Mr. Van Horn had "no knowledge of Carrier inducting. him into Phase IV of PISP until around noon of June 3, 1993 when Claimant received a call from the crew dispatrhar.advising him to attend a safety toasting scheduled for 1:00 p. m. that day. Organisation asserted that Mr. Van Hors

        had 'no knowledge-of his own involvement' in-PISP. and did not _

                          AN= NO. 8

                          ME CASE NO. 119

                          UNION CASE N0. PR-J. E.·Vaa Hors

                          COMPANY CASE N0. 9303253

                          4


receive any information with regard to the Program from either Mr. Hill or Mr. Harrie at the.Juae 10 muting.
 The Organization" further argued that pursuant to the August 7 incident, Mr. Van Hoxa °promptly" complied with Rules 806 and 4004, both of which pertain to Carrier employee's obligation to report personal injuries. Carrier also asserted that Claimant wan in .violation of Rules '804 and 805, both of which require inspection of equipment by 2. ·competeat employee of the mechanical' department.' 0X9a^izatioa asserts that Claimant wis not qualified to do such inspections, nor is it part of his job description, sad once Mr, Van Horn reported the injury, he ran relieved of say responsibility with respect to those Rules. Finally, Organization- submitted that Carrier eras "using PISP as a progressive discipliae.program rather than a progressive intervention program.·
      Carrier do" ied the claim axgisiag that it had relied on

·substaatial" evidence adduced at the investigation sad that Claimant "conducted himself is aa.unsafe manner." Carrier further asserts that:, 'Claimant's frequency factor sad severity factor is greater thaw other employees performing the same job."
 Finally, Carrier Pointed out that it *Is responsible. for Mr. Van
 Hors's protection as well as his tenor employees' roll being". Carrier maintains that numerous attempts to retrain Claimant "have been to no avail.-
                          AMA= NO. B

                          me CASE NO. 119

                          UNION CASE NO. PR-J.E.-Van Horn

                          COMPANY CASE NO. 9303253

                          5


In November, 1989. Carrier formalized and implemented the BProgressive Intervention and Safety Program· (PISP). Carrier's declared intent for the system-wide program was to 'offer a consistent method. of dealing with those individuals who repeatedly suffer on-duty: personal injuries." Additionally, and hopefully intervene in the injury process before individuals are disabled by persoaal.injuxy or disciplinary action becomes nacessary." PISP consists of five (5) phases in which affected employees are supppsed to be "fully involved" at each juncture. In aid of thae goal, program participants are provided a copy of the "Progressive in'terventioa.Safety Program," a guidebook which provides a-comprehensive.overview of PISA. Carrier ma 3.atains it tries "to followahe.gdidabook as closely as we can."
 Following is a brief overview of the phase progressionphase i cammences.,when.an employee is involved in a personal injury/unsafe act. The individual is required to attend a "Manager's Conference" with his/her immediate supervisor to discuss the incident. if that employee is involved in a second personal injury/unsafe act, and has had five (5) injuries within the prior seven (y) years; or more injuries than years of service; or two (2) or more injuries in a calendar year, Phase I7 is initiated. Like Phase I of the program, Phase II consists of a safety conference, however, in addition to the employee's immediats supervisor, Carrier Safety Manager is also present. If
 the affected employee. meets "appropriate criterion" as a result _

                                                ~a-a


                          AMARD N0. 8

                          NNE CASE NO- 119

                          UNION CASE NO. Pit-J.E.-Van Horn

                          CMOANY CASE NO. 9303253

                          6


of the Phase =I meeting, Phase IS= is implemented, in which a
 "voluntary safety.Training.Program" is designed for the
 individual. Should an additional incident occur, phase 2?
 commences and the employee is placed in a "Mandatory Safety
 Training program". Should. .another personal injury/unsafe act
 occur thereafter, Phase V; "Formal Investigation Account of
 PISP", can be utilized. .Detailed checklists and appropriate
 documentation are requisite at each phase of the program, and
 when checklist ittms have -been "thoroughly discussed", any
 participant .involved in. a.particular phase is required to sign
 the forma. It is'importsat to note that Carrier insists that
 "all Phsses,should be.utilised before prSP disciplinary action is
 initiated.' (8mphaeis added).
 we have examiaedthe record evidence and conclude that
 Carrier committed: no. fatal procedural error in connection with
 issuance of the the termination letter. There was, however, a
 serious departure from Carrier's committment to scrupulous
 adherence to the phase progression of PT-SP which requires this
 Hoard to reverse.the termination. The Organization has
 persuasively. demonstrated that Carrier skipped over phase 111 and
 precipitously invoked the Pbase V disciplinary procedures before
 fully utilizing~Phase IV. As a consequence, the Carrier
 offficers javolved deprived rlximant of the full benefits which
 P=sP has to.offer.withig the guidelines set forth in the program.
 Therefore, even though Carrier has shown that this CIsimant has a
 AWARD NO. 8
 MIS CASE NO. 319
 UNION CASE NO. PR-J.E.-Van Horn
 COMPANY CASE NO. 9303253

 "dismal ^ safety .and discipline record, we have no alternative but
 to direct his reinstatement to service at Phase IV of the PISP.
 Claimant should not taka,undue satisfaction in this result,
 however, because he is subject to the "Mandatory Safety Training
 Program· and remains. only one step away from Phase V. Moreover,
 fairness.requires.that Carrier be permitted to take his absence
 history into account in calculating back wages under this award.
 ANAIM
      i)Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the

      Opinion. .

      2) Carrier shall implement this Award_within thirty (30) days' of its execution by a majority of the Hoard.


      Dana Edward Nischen, Ch8lrman


Dated at Z-haca--New York on yulv 30. 1994
Union member

 Dated at .%'aicF
on (' 9'(

lya~

Comg"ny Hembe

 Dated at
 ,P- 22
        -'fi