Parties
to the
Dispute
PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5396
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE
OF WAY EMPLOYES
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY
(Western Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
1. That the Carrier violated the current
Agreement when it dismissed Laborer
A.R. Mendoza. Said action being excessive, unduly harsh and in abuse of
discretion.
2. That the Carrier now reinstate Claimant
to his former Carrier position with
seniority and all other rights restored
unimpaired, with pay for all loss suffered,
and his record cleared of all charges.
FINDINGS
PLB Case No. 6
NMB Case No. 6
On February 19, 1991, Claimant A.R. Mendoza was sent
the following Notice of Investigation:
2
539-
You are hereby notified to be present at
the Office of the Trainmaster, 795 Newhall
Street, San Jose, California, at 9:00 AM,
Tuesday, February 26, 1991, for formal
hearing to develop the facts and place
responsibility, if any, in connection with
your allegedly submitting a false injury
report to Roadmaster L. C. Lybarger on
Saturday, February 2, 1991.
You are charged with responsibility which
may involve violation of the following
rules, those parts reading:
1'607. CONDUCT: Employes must not be:
... (4) Dishonest ....
Any act of hostility, misconduct
or willful disregard or negligence
affecting the interests of the
company is sufficient cause for
dismissal...
Indifference to duty, or to the
performance of duty, will not be
condoned."
"605. SUBJECT TO CALL: Employes subject
to call must advise where they can be
reached and must not absent themselves
from their usual calling place without
notice-to those required to call them.
GENERAL RULE A, that part reading:
"A . ....Obedience to the rules is
essential to safety and to remaining
in service. The service demands the
faithful, ...discharge of duty."
as shown in the Chief Engineer's Instructions for
the Maintenance of Way and Structures dated March
1, 1990.
5 3gL-
6
The hearing was held in absentia on March 7, 1991.
Claimant was in jail at the time in San Luis Obispo. (Four
days after he had been conditionally reinstated to work for
a Rule G violation in August 1990, he had been arrested for
public drunkness and making obscene phone calls. He did not
begin serving his term until February 1991.) The subject of
the hearing was Claimant's report of an injury that he
allegedly sustained on February 1, 1991, and which he reported a day later. Carrier concluded, following the investigation, that the charge was sustained and Claimant was
terminated from service.
It is Carrier's belief that Claimant falsified his
injury report as an excuse to stay away from work when he
entered jail. This Board has reviewed the entire record of
this case and finds that the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence produced by carrier points to that conclusion. Claimant's dealings with Carrier throughout this
period were at best duplicitous. Carrier has the right to
expect that its employes will deal with the Company in a
straightforward manner. Based upon all of the facts of
this case, the discipline imposed is appropriate.
AWARD
Claim denied.
C. H.
Fo~, Emp oye member
-q- &?3-
q4
Date of Approval
S 3qb-(O
Gold, !uttral Chairman
K.E. Johnson, Carrier Member