PUBLIC LA lip BOARD - NO. 5418
Case No. 32 Award No. 32
PARTIES
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
to - and -
DISPUTE
:
Springfield Terminal Railway Company
STATEA1ENT OF CLAIM
:
Appeal of discipline of a 15 working days suspension
imposed on Manuel Furtado, on November 10, 1998.
FLVDING.V:
Subsequent to a hearing held on October 26, 1998, claimant was found guilty of
violating several Safety Rules in connection with an incident that, occurred
on
September 25, -
1998, while he was welding on a portion of a door to a tunnel when the door came down forcing
him to jump to an adjacent angle iron.
By way of background, on the date cited, claimant was assigned to make modifications to
a door at the west portal of the Hoosac Tunnel, where he had been assigned for two weeks. In
preparing to perform his assignment, which was approximately 40 feet above the track bed,
claimant placed several planks which he used as a platform. One end of the planks was supported
by a granite abutment and the other end was supported by the tunnel door, which was in an up
position. The door in question, which is extremely large, moves in an up and down position, and
is moved by an electric motor controlled remotely by Train Operations in Billerica, Mass. The
door can also be operated manually by one of two chain falls located on each side of the door. As
a safety precaution, the chain falls can be fastened to the doors to prevent the door from falling.
On the date of the incident, an electrician and a B & B mechanic were also working at the site.
The electrician and the claimant's helper, who was assigned to assist the electrician, were in the
process of removing the electric motor when the door fell thereby requiring the claimant to jump
4")a NO, 3--1
PLBNo. 5418 C-32/A-32
Page 2
and grab onto metal roof supports in order to avoid a tragic fall.
After a thorough review of the parties' submissions, we cannot sustain the Organization's
position in this case. It is evident from our reading of the record, that there is substantial evidence
to support Carrier's determination that claimant failed to carry out his
responsibility to make sure
that either he, or someone else had secured the chain falls to insure that the door was properly
fastened before he began his task. The following dialogue, at pages 31 and 32, of the hearing
record clearly illustrates the claimant made faulty assumptions and failed to take proper safety
precautions:
"Q. Did you at any time check them chain falls?
A. No I did not. Only-only because, like I had stated before,
if the door was in service or out of service ...when it's out of
service, the door by common practice has been put on chain
falls so that it, ....it won't come down and give an indication
in Billerica that the door's closed. I mean anytime that door
has been taken out of service, it's put on the chain falls. Why
those chain falls weren't on ....i didn't even get down into that
part so I didn't know they weren't on.
A. I was working on the top.
Q. So again, you assumed something should be there.
A. Oh, yeah. If the door is out of service, yes.
Q. Assuming apparently didn't work, did it?
A. No it did not."
Awo
ND
· Ba
PLB No. 5418 C-32/A-32
Pag=e 3
Accordingly, given the established facts of this case, and in consideration of the serious
nature of the proven offense, we fmd the Carrier did not misuse its discretion when it assessed
discipline.
AWD
: The claim is denied.
saia
~,
Fra s J. Dorm~
Ne ral Membd~-
T. W. McNulty
Carrier Member
B. A. Wi er
Organization Member