(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARIIESTO DISPUTE
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
S'fA'IHM!=IN'TQf CLAIM
Carrier's decision to dismiss Central Region Maintenance of way employee VV. Tso,
effective December If, 1995 was unjust.
Accordingly, Carrier should now be required to reinstate the claimant to service with
his seniority rights unimpaired and compensate him for all wages lost from December
11, 1995. (01-08-.A.13/240-IJAI-9527)
FINDINGS
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein arc carrier
and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly
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.
On October 3, 1995, the Carrier directed the following letter to the Claimant
"...This is to advise you that, effective September 26, 1995, your seniority and
employment with The Santa Fe Railway Company is hereby terminated pursuant to
the provisions of Letter of Understanding dated July 13, 1970 for being absent
without proper authority for more than five (5) consecutive work days beginning
September 18, 19, 20,
21, 22
and
25
forward.
If you dispute the action taken hereinabove, you may, if you desire, request to be
given an imestigation under the provisions of Rule 13 of the current aarcement. Such
request for investigation must be trade to this office at the address noted below within
twenty (20) days from the date of this notice,...
If no request for investigation is received in my office within the twenty day period,
the matter of your employment termination will be considered closed ...."
i°~,c
rya - S
Page'-) Award No. ~
Case No. 22
Claimant timely requested the Investigation, following which the Carrier reafirnted its
decision to terminate
Claimant contends that he was upset with the way the Foreman talked to hint and left the
property to look for the Foreman's Supervisor to report the Foreman, but was unable to make
contact.
The Foreman's Supervisor testified that Claimant did leave a voice mail request for a meeting,
but they were unable to connect
The Supervisor, who Claimant contends he was seeking to report the Foreman's alleged
conduct, testified he was on the property overseeing the gang and could have been contacted there,
but Claimant, after the 15th of September when he had the meeting with the Foreman, did not
reappear at the work site.
Unrebutted testimony given during the investigation clearly shows that Claimant was not
authorized to be off on the days charged in his letter of termination. Thus, this Board will not
interfere with Carrier's right to discharge its obligation under Appendix No. 11. Claimant's seniority
and employment rights have been property terminated as provided in Appendix No. 11.
AWARD
Claim denied
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award
favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made
' pz-e
N0 - Sa
Page 3 Award No
a~--
Case No 22
Robert L Hicks
Chairman &. Neutral Member
noose
Awl
Greg Griffin
Labor Member Carrier Member
Dated 1
M/97