PLJBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5696
PARTIES Burlington Northern Railroad Company
TO
DISPUTE: _
AND -
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The discipline of dismissal imposed upon Claimant
here for alleged responsibility in connection with an
altercation which took place on June 3, 1994, while
Claimant was assigned as a welder to a rail gang,
was unwarranted and without just and sufficient
cause and in violation of the Agreement.
(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to above,
Claimant's record shall be cleared of the charge
leveled against him, and he shall be reinstated to his
former position with all rights unimpaired and
compensated for all wage loss'suffered.
MAY - I 19~
GENERAL CHAIRNiAh'S OFFICE i
FRISCO FEDERATION KAWl i
SPRINGFIELD, N!0.
a
FINDINGS
Upon the whole record the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and
Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that
this Board is duly constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the
parties and the subject matter.
The transcripts of the investigation of this dispute indicates that Claimant herein
was involved in an altercation with a fellow member of his rail gang on June 3,
1994, while staying at a Company-provided lodging at a motel in Lenexa,
Kansas: There is no doubt, based on the testimony indicated, that Claimant, as
well as his protagonist, were both involved in some drinking prior to the incident.
The incident itself, initiated by name-calling and ultimately ending up in a
physical brawl, was clearly attested to by witnesses, as well as admitted by both
participants.
Petitioner insists that Mr. Campbell did not violate any Carrier rules since he was
not on duty at the time of the altercation, nor was he responsible for the
altercation. Furthermore, according to the Organization, Campbell did everything
he could to prevent the altercation from taking place. Carrier, on the other hand,
indicates that there was no question but that Campbell violated Carrier rules by
involving himself in this altercation, and the evidence clearly attests to that.
3
The Board, having reviewed the transcript
of
the investigation, concludes that an
altercation did take place and who the instigator
of
the altercation was is
immaterial. It is apparent that Claimant, here, was responsible, at least in part,
for the altercation escalating into a physical confrontation. Both the Claimant
here and his protagonist both could have prevented the altercation from taking
place. Neither chose to do so. From the standpoint of the Board, engaging in
an altercation such as this, even when off-duty in a lodging sponsored by the
Carrier, is unacceptable behavior, and as such, should be punished by severe
discipline, including dismissal. In this instance, dismissal was appropriate based
on all the facts and Claimant's past record. -
AWARD
Claim denied.
I: M. Lieberman, Neutral-Chairman
Stamford, Connecticut
April
a~,
1995