Award No. 3-vD
Coos No, 800
(Brother of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Banta F® Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on February 9, 2008 when
Claimant, G. A. Ar"neaux, eras withhold from serdrWe and later
dlsmiaed art March
22, 2006 for
ai"'ed vlotaflon'of`MalhtrsniSnr;i~
-of"
Way Oparating Rut* 1,$ - Conduct and Engl:ca:ing
instrul-lion 22.2 =
Showing Proper Conduct when claimant allegedly had inappropriate
contact with a maid
on February 8, 2008; and
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in part 1 tire
Carrier shall
Immediately return tilt Claimant to service with seniority, vacation and
ail other rights unimpaired,
remove any mention of this incident from
Claimant's personal record, and make Ciamant
whole for a8
tine lost
commencing February 9. 2008.
FINDI14GE
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties
heroin 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 duo notice of
the hearing thereon.
Claimant was a Welder Foreman in charge of a mobile gang that travels
constantly,
On February 10, 2006, the Carrier advised Claimant an investigation was being
convened to ascertain his responsibility, If any, regarding alleged misconduct at a I
In Clifton where Carrier crews were staying. The incident was the alleged Inappropriate
p L8 ND ~~
s
L'
Page 2 Award n.
3
Case No. 300
touching of a maid employed
thereat. The local
police were called and Issued Claimant
two citations. Claimant boas also asked is leave the motel.
There Is no evidence of charges being filed, let alone an Indictment, nor was re
anything more revealing as to the nature of the two citations that were Issued.
The Investigation was postponed by mutual agreement, finally being held on
March 9, 2006. The reason for the postponements was to find out if any Indictments
were levied or warrants issued.
There were none. In
fact, Claimant stated there would
be no indictment and the
charges, whatever they were, were likely to be dropped.
The only thing
In front of this Board Is
the maid's version of what occurred and
Claimant°a denial that anything happened. There was no evidence offered by anyone
else at the motel concerning Claimant's behavior that
would In anyway point
t0
aberrant
behavior.
What is evident Is the fact that the motel felt justified
in calling for bee police
and
barring
Claimant therefrom.
Claimant was charged with violating Rules 1.5 and 21.2. The
charges will be
upheld, but for a leas serious charge than Improper touching.
A review
of
Claimants work record has six entries, five for disciplinary reasons
and one entry
for qualified
performance for working December 24 and 25 to assist In
cleaning up a. d®mlirerant rather than spending titer holidays
with
his family.
Clearly the issue at the motel was embarrassing
to the Carrier. The dismissal
clearly would have been upheld but were ft not for the leer of qualified performance.
Under the circumstances, the dismissal will
be reduced to along suspension
Claimant is to be returned to service whit all of his seniority rights but without any pay for
PCB No. SPSd
Page 3 Award No. 3
0©
Case No. 300
Ume lost
Claim sustained in accordance
with the
Findi
This Board, after consideration of the dispute ide above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Clsimant(s) be made. The Carrier Is ordered to make the
award effective on or befono 30 days following the date the award fs adopbsd.
Robert L. Hicks, Chairman & Neutral r
L-
/r'GU'zfi l ~.£
David D. Tanner, Labor Member Samantha Rogers, Carrier r
Dated: