A No.
Cow No. 306
( of MaintenanceWay Em
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
(Time Bu N Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Rallway Company)
TENT OF
CLAIM:
1. Tire Carrier v the Agreement when Claknent, E. Gaytan, was
dismi on August 22, for a on of Maintenance of Way
Operating Rules 1.5-Conduct and 1.1 of Property
for failure to
comply with instructions and nil of company property on May 10
and 11, ; and
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in part 1 the Carrier
shaft Immediately return the Claimant to service with seniorhy,
vaeadon and all odw rights unimpaired, rwnove any
n of this
incident from Cia' s personal record, and make C
for all than lost
commencing August 2Z 2006.
Upon the whole record and ail the evidence,
the
Board finds drat the parties
herein am Carder and Em in the nirrg of the Railway Labor Act, as
amended. Further, the td is duty con by Agreement, has Jurisdiction of the
Parties and of the , and the Parties to this dispubt were ghmn dune notion of
the homing n.
C nt was a Land Welder headquartevood
at
Poet, T at L k,
Te$aa 42 miles t of Post.
Tie Su - or in headquartered at L k, Texas sex! was on her first
assignmont as
a Roa r.
The R a heodquartars as Lubbock, whavais On welders live in L
PLO 00, IS-55D
page 2 Award No.
Came No. 306
out were qua at P The R and living at
Lubbock
worked
out a k thus
n Ow welders were working in Lubbock or t
o Lubbock, th" could start out end end
VM*
day at Lubbock. When working other than
In Lubbock or east of would start and end the day at the assigned
headquarters, Post, Texas
The Supervisor advised Claimant twice, once on y and in on
Th , that he was to Wave the welding truck at Post Instead of Lu This he did
not
do.
The r Claimant that an 1 lion was being con
°...to develop the and piece responsibility, M any, in con with
your possible v of Rules) 1.6 and 1.19, of the 11ai ce of Way
operating Rules, M eliloct October 31, 2004, as supplaimenlied or Amended,
concerning your alleged failure to comply with instructions given by your
supervisor when you did not report back So your headquartered , on
or , May 1®, and . May 11, as well as
your of company property when you drove a welding truck
from Post TX to L TX on I gme, on do Kansas division,
white ass' as Load , on Post Fleadquarter Welding Truck-
Alternative handling
in ilea of haves as per applicable cal
bargaining aganarnt, will be red a the Wine of the ly
Summit Agreement. R be made in writing t® 0
Engineer ...."
A m agreed pour rats, the 1 lion was hold July 31. 206.
The Carrier believed OW head s ca to establish
Claltnarrt's culpability for
the
chat i in the and In a Wier dated August 22,
ZM, they advised Claimant he was dismissed.
The record
convinces oft Board that the Carrier did furnish sufficient evidence.
This Is based an
lestimmW of Claimant during the hweaduatiorL He was less then
C
,g ,lt®.
ssso
m
No.
Case No. 306
Id. The Ca did n during the on handling as
fol _
"...Claimants testimony is not credible. First claimant tos
R her
Haute did not talk to him in person and that she never
ins ham to thr up at Post, Tests. But than later In his testimony
found on page 37 lines 17 through 20 of the Investigation Transcript he
states that he dal talk to Roadm Holle an Wednesday."
Insu in your , "I
on rot doing what you
or listening quietly
to the Instructions and then ignoring the instructions. The latter
version is ChdmarWs.
This Is his second Insubordination rap in Was than 12 s, and
to the Carrier
it is a dismissal . The Ca ~s decision to dismiss is a a.
It is noted Cia had the opportunity to wafir® the Investigation the
a dve handling but de for whatever _ _ n to
take
his char. ®t an
Investigation.
Claim
e1WltRD
This , after consideration of the dispute Identified a,
hereby orders that
an awwd
hIV
to the C ' sp rot be
R L Hicks, Chairman ber
David D. Tanner, For tee Em
Dated:
