(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

STATEKENT OF Cue:

1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when on July 38, 2000, Mr. E. J. Salazar was disqualified from Foreman and Assistant Foreman positions` based on his alleged inability to properly supervise the employees under his jurisdiction, his alleged inability to plan the work of his crew, and his inability to recognize the priority of projects.

2. As a consequence of the Carrier's violation referred to above, the Claimants shah have his right to work as Foreman and Assistant Foreman restored, and he shall be compensated for ail wage and other benefit toss.

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, die Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute wens given due notice of the hearing thereon.

Claimant, as of the date of the investigation, had five years service as a Foreman. Furthermore, since his hire date of April 34,1981, to the date of the Investigation, he had a clean record. No disciplinary hearings whatsoever. In fact, there is not even one letter of warning or confirmation of a conference relative to offering constructive criticism regarding his actions as a Foreman. Claimant testified that for the five years unfit shortly before the disqualification, he worked Forman and Assistant Foreman vacancies

It appears that the decision to disqualify was based on a collection of various unfounded, unsupported allegations that no one thought were serious enough at the time !o take any corrective action. If ha was derelict in handling the crossing work, a hearing should have bean held. If It was believed he was negligent In getting the craw to the jab site promptly, a hearing should have been held. If the Instructions concerning the angle burs ware clear and not compiled with, charges should have been filed.

In aI disciplinary cases (and this has to be considered as discipline when he is forced to work in a lesser compensated capacity) there is a burden to furnish substantial evidence to support the charges.

The disqualification latter reads:

".At ha: bean determined that you have not demonstrated the ability to

handle the positions in a manner consistent with BNSF requirements ...."

Before reviewing the file I wondered what the BNSF requirements for Foreman were. Attar reading the tile thoroughly, 1 soil had no inkling a: to what were BNSF's requirements.

The charges were not substantiated.

AW D