a3iPrr oatiL'pUsiac maw >aEQARn Ho. assn
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
Eastern District
nod
UNION PACIF3C
RAILROAD COMPANY
Cars 7Vo. R2
,UATEME]N[' OF
Claim of Engineer R. S. Davis of North Platte, Nebraska, for pay for all time
lost and all entries of this discipline (UPGRADE Level 4) to be removed from his
personal record.
ErNnaNCS:
Claimant R. S_ Davis was employed by the Carrier as as engineer at the time of the claim.
On October 27, 1997, the Carrier notified the Claimant to either accept the proposed
discipline of UPGRADE Level 4 by executing a Waiver of Hearing form or to appear for a
formal investigation to determine his responsibility, if any, in connection with the charge that
while be worked as an engineer on the MNPCB-i S at approximately 0643 on October 18,1997,
he allegedly passed signal displaying stop (red aspect) at CPB283 resulting in run through dual
control switch # 17 on Eastward Number 2, Main Line, North Platte, Nebraska. The Claimant
was charged with violating Rules 9.5 and 8. i S, among others, and Item 17 245Q in System
Timetable No. 2. The Claimant was to be held out of service pending the results of the
investigation. Because the investigation had been delayed for an extended period of time, on
November 10, 1997, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he was being returned to service
effective November 18, 1997, pending the outcome of the investigation.
The hearing took plats on December 3, 199?. On December 11, 1997, the Carrier
' ND . ~70~1 ,8
c- 'o
.,uo . ~'.~.
notified the Claimant that he had been found guilty of the charges, was no longer qualified to
meet the requirements for the position of locomotive engineer, and was being assessed as
UPGRADE Level 4,
thirty day's suspension. However, the Carrier found that since the Claimant
was withheld from service for thirty days, October 19, 1997, through November 1?, 1997,
pending the investigation, that period was considered to be time served. The Claimant would be
allowed to return to service only after passing a rules examination and participating in a
corrective action plan upon his reium to work.
The Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimant challenging the discipline. The
Organization contends that the Carrier prejudged the Claimant gad withheld the Claimant from
service for thirty days without a hearing, that the incident in question was caused by a faulty
signal and not by the Claimant, and that the Cagier exhibited several procedural errors is the
discipline process, failed to conduct a fair and impartial hearing, failed to adequately meet its
burden of proof, and failed to take info account all of the surrounding circumstances of the
incident. The Carrier denied the claim based on the evidence in the record.
The parties being unable to resolve the issue, this matter came before this Board.
This Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by the Organization, and we
find them to be without merit
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that the
Cattier has failed to meet its burden of proof that the Claimant violated any rules. There were no
eyewitnesses to the incident and the event recorder dots not show that the Claimant passed a red
signal. Also, the CAD report is inconclusive.
It is Fundamental that in all discipline cases, the Carrier bears the burden of proof to
show
2
FLB
No.
5~3/ .
acv
D .~ . ~.~
that the Claimant acted in violation of the rules. The Claimant made it clear that he had the
proper signal the entire time. There is
insufficient
evidence is the record to support the Carrier's
ease that the Claimant acted wrongfitIly on the date in question.
For all of the above reasons, the claim moat be sustained and the Claimant made whole
and else discipline removed from the Claimant's record.
AWARD.,
The claim is sustained. The discipline shall lx am the Claimant's record and
he shall be made whole.
PE R. ME
Neu MemYbERS
er
C R &MBER ORGANIZATION "ER
D ted: ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~ Dated-
3