PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6860
Award No. 204a
Case No. 206
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAiw
_
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on June 8, 2001, when it 4sued
Mr. D. L Sanders, a 30-day record suspension for aihpsdly vkAatinq
Maintenance of Way Operating Rules 1.2.7 and 1.8, for fate to
report aft the facts concerning an injury,
2 As a consequence of the violation referred to above, the Carrier
shaft remove any mention of the Incident from Mr. Sanders' personal
record, and make him whole for any rapes lost, per the Agreement.
FINOMS
Upon the whole record and a1 the evidence, the Board finds that the parties
heroin are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Rallwoy Labor Act, as
amended. Further, the Board is duty constituted by Agreement, has Juron of the
Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute wore given due notice of
the hearing thereon.
On June 29, 2001, the Carrier wrote Claimant setting up an Investigation to
determine his responsibility, if any:
"...In connection with your possible violation of Rules 1.1.1,1.1.1, 1.2.T and
1.6 of the Maintenance of Way Operating RulN, In sthc! January 31, 1908
as supplemented or amended, Including revisions up to April 2, 2000.
This imestipatlon is concerning your cWm of on duty personal injury,
occurring on or about Friday, June 8, 2001, while working "Truck DOW
on Littlefield Saetion."
On September 7, 2001, the Carrier wrote Claimant that as a result of investigation
held ors August 10, 2001, Claimant was being assessed a 30
day
record suspension fof
violation of Rules 1.2.7 and 1.8 of the Maintenance
of Way
Operating Rules while
assigned as a truck driver on June 8, 2001.
Rule 1.2.7 is the critical Rule and has reference to withholding Information. Rule
1.6 comes Into play only ff he Is found culpable of violating Rule 1.2.7.
The withholding
of
Information is based upon Claimant's reactions to
experiencing a son back on Friday, June 8, 2001. He told his Farm.ran his back was
sore before he vent home, but cautioned the Foreman not to pass the information in. It
just may be nothing.
On Sunday, June 10, 2001, he called the Foreman Informing him that on Monday
he sow seeking medical advice relative to his back, whereupon Claimant did not request
It be kept secret any longer.
The Board finds that Claimant did nothing other than telling his Form.an about his
back and ff the ache went away, that would be that, but ff fee would seek medical
attention he would tall the Foreman. Since that tine, Claimant has answered all the
questions asked promptly and up front This the Carrier, the Board bellewa, finds
refreshing but the Carrier has a 72 hour window frame for just soreness, schea, cramps,
etc., that may occur that may be relieved by a hot soak and some over-dw·counbr pain
medication. Claimant should have reported his allment under the 72 hour window, then
when it became necessary
to
seek medical relief, change the soft tlssus report to tire
actual injury report,
Under these circumstances, the Carrier has substantiated a violation of Rule 1.2.7
i
Page 3
PL-6 N o . S-&Sa
did occur; thus the discipline b found to
be
apPruprblts.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Award 110. 2010
Case No. 206
ORDER
This Board, after consideration o!
the
dispute IdsntNlad above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
obert L Hiclu.
Cha
n 3 Neutral IAember
Rick B. Wehrli. Labor Member
Dated: ~prr.
~~.
.~" jD
Thomas M. RohVnp, Carrier bar