Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duty constituted by Agreement. has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
believing it had furnished sufficient evidence of Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed, dismissed Claimant from its service.
From the record, Claimant was using an adz on a tie to widen the area a tie plate rests as they were replacing the existing rail with heavier rail that required a larger tie plate. The Foreman testified he noticed Claimant standing beside the tie taking overhead swings with the adz. The Foreman went to Claimant, indicated he was to use short chopping motions and not overhead swings, and he was to straddle the tie.
Claimant responded that he had been working here for 15 years and knew how to use every tool the Carrier had, Claimant then again executed an overhead swing, striking the middle of the tie and nearly hitting his foot. The Foreman also testified that a$ of that moment he heard Claimant make a statement that he hoped he would hurt himself as he could file a big claim against the company.
After reporting the Incident to the Roadmaster, the Roadmaster, after questioning both Claimant and the Foreman, suspended Claimant from service pending the outcome of the Investigation.
There is no question as to Claimant's improper use of the adz Several of his peers supported the Foreman's report of Claimant's use of the adz, but no one other than the Foreman overheard Claimant say that he hoped he would get injured so he could file a big claim against the company. Claimant denies the statement.
On the credibility of witness Issue, the Board finds the Foreman's testimony credible. There Is no indication that it was other than the truth as no other reason has been advanced that the Foreman had an ax to grind and was out to scuttle Claimant's career with the Carrier.
The Board does, therefore, agree with the Carrier that substantial evidence was adduced at the investigation to establish Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed.
He evidently has not learned that such remarks are not taken tightly by the Carrier. Individuals who work with that thought in mind are a liability to themselves and to others.
Although Claimant was discharged for unsafe work habits and being insubordinate and quarretaome (facts clearly established in the investigation), Claimant's remark clearly had an Impact on Carrier's decision, particularly when his past record was taken in consideration.