PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5850
Award No.
Case No. 808
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CI-AIM:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when Claimant, S. P. Fisher, was
assessed a 10-day record suspension on February 20, 2406 for a
violation of Maintenance of Way Operating Rules 1.13-Reporting &
Complying with Instructions and
1,16-Duty-Reporting
or Absence
when Claimant failed to report for duty
on
January 12, 2006 and
failed to comply with instructions on January 13 and 14, 2406; and
Z. As a consequence of the violation referred to in part 1 the Carrier
shall immediately return the Claimant to service with seniority,
vacation and all other rights unimpaired, remove any mention of this
incident from Claimant's personal record, and make Clamant whole
for all time lost commencing February 20, 2408.
FIN NC,w_~^
Upon the whole
record and all the evidence, the Board finds
that the
parties
herein 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 due notice of
the hearing thereon.
Claimant occupied the position off Track Supervisor, These are seven-day jobs
requiring
someone to
cover or inspect a certain number of tracks within a ten-day
period.
If the employee has a good reason
to
be off he
must notify his Supervisor
PL-rt) No, c5's5b
R 2 Award No.
C No. 308
preferably by phone or face to face, but a message left on
an answering machine about
being absent does not protect
the individual. He must talk with the Supervisor.
Claimant was off January 11, called in after the 1800 hour on the 1e, advising he
n to be off on the 13d' and 14"'. When an assignment starts at 0700 and Claimant
calls in during the 1800 hour on the same day, he obviously is not protecting his job.
Furthermore, he
left his request on the
answering machine rather than with his
Supervisor directly.
Recorded messages do not protect the employee; he has to talk with the
Supervisor. Claimant's Supervisor laid out
the layoff
procedure when talking to the gang
In early January, thus Claimant should have been forewarned of the layoff requirements.
The Carrier convened an Investigation for Claimant:
"...to determine all facts and place responsibility if any, in your alleged
failure to report your absence on Thursday, January 12; 2006 and failure to
comply with instructions on Friday, January 13,
2006 and Saturday,
January 14, 2006. You are in possible violation of Rule 1.13 Reporting and
Complying with Instructions and Rule 1.16 Duty-Reporting or Absence of
the Maintenance of Way Orating Rules in effect Sunday, October 31,
2004 with revisions up to November 22, 20052
Shortly after the completion of the Investigation, Claimant was advised that the
Carrier was assessing Claimant a 10-day record suspension
that does not require lost
time. The discipline Is a light when looking at Claimant`s record (6 disciplinary
entries since 1986, plus one letter of accommodation in 1997).
The Board leaves standing the findings of guilt and the light discipline assessed.
AWARD
Claim dented.
ORDER
Pis6 Na
P 3
Award No.
Case No. 308
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
arm award favorable to the Clalmantis) not be made.
Cobert
lY.
lcks, Chairman & Neutral AAmmber
David D. Tanner, For the Employees
Dated: //_J',
Samantha Rogers, For th rrler