PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO, 5860
Award No.
Case No. 183
(8rotherhaad of
1lalnbnanc: of Way Employ**
(The Burlington *m Santa Fe RtNroad
8TATEii1EN1' OF CLAW
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when an January 11. 2001, Mr.
C. R. Vasquez was removed from service and subsequently dismissed front
service on WArah 13, 2001 for aMegedy violating Winbnance of Way
OperatlttS Rusts i.i.T, 8.60, 6.60.1 and 6.6 in conjunction with his ailegsdiy
improperly "@rating a balVst regulator that struck the east of a firelight
train at about 12.06 PM on
January 11, 20Q1. damaging both tine ballast
regulator and the mar car on the ilreight train.
3. As a consequence of the Carrier's violation refarred to above Mr.
Yasquu shall be reWrnad to service, the discipline shall be "moved from
lift. Vsaquez's personas n,cord and he shall be compensated for all vwQse
lost if any, to accordance with the Agreement.
Upon the whole record and ail the evidence,
the Board finds that the parties
herein are rattler and employe* within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
amended. Further, the board is duly consbhrLsd by ABroemeM, has jurisdiction of the
Parties and of the subject
mater,
and the Parties to this dispute wen given due notice of
the hearing thereon.
Claimant was operating s ballast machine. On a clear day he mar-ended a freight
train stopped ahead of him damaging the ballast machine beyond repair. suffering only
minor injuries.
The Investigation astablishad that Claimant had a eight clearance of
Cars No. 183
approxlmssrly i 100 feet, and that at about the 460 toot distance he applied the brakes
only to rear-ortd
the train.
The ballast regulator was examined and no mechanical default was found that
would hater precluded Claimant from stopping the unit shy of rear-end#ng the bin.
The Caller ran tests with another unit,
with
the brake sat with the same clearance
as the unit that
was damaged, and
in four
dlf%ront sattlngs, stopped lass than hilt' the
distance to the stoppsd traits. Claimant had no real explanation as to what happened
other
than when he applied the brakes, it &owned like the unit picked up speed rather
than stopping, and that he teas not aware the train would step.
Testimony was that if the brakes lock on the wheals and the wheals soda, ·t can
seem I·ks the unit Is
gaining speed, but no shiny spots mare
on either the tall
or the
brake pads that would Indicate locked wheels occurred and the unit skidded strand
without stopping.
C·aMnant was tooted for drugs and
alcohol, but as
of the date of the
Investigation,
the Carrier had not boon notified at the results, but as of the dais Claimant was
dismissed (·IAwrch 13, 20011 the Cattier Would have surely known and d' Claimant had s
prohibitive drug or alcohol ·n hit system, ·t would hays taken further action.
Under the circumstances,
with no
obvious mechanical problem with the balsas!
machine and a dry, clear day with visibility about 1100 test, Claimant simply was
negligent In the oporating of Ow unit.
Clabnant's work record is not squawky ale:n, having 3 disciplinary ·ncidsnta since
he hind out In
June, 1993, nevertheless,
it !: real that serious
that preckrdss
reinstate
Case No. 'f fifi,3
it
is this Board's determination that Claimant is to lute all of his seniority
tyttad, but thore will be no pay for tirne bat
Gfiafim:ustainsd In acce>rdinco wtth the Findings.
fi3 ",~_,R
"this Board, alter consideration of the dispute Identified sb*ws, hereby
orders that
an award favorable to the Cfiaimant(Q be made. The Carrier Is ordered to make the
award effective cut or before 30 days following
the data the award is adopted.
R
rt
L. Wks, airman & Neutral Umber
.___~ . ~.
Rick fi3. Wehrifi, Labor Member
Thomas fit. Rohifinp* Carrieimfior
Dated;
/VGv,
z 6
~,Q, t