PUBLIC LAW 130ARD NO. 5650
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the ASndement when Claimant R. L. Anaya, was
withheld from service on August 25, 2007 pending Invest, and
subsequently dismissed on November 16, 2007 for alleged violation
of Maintenance of Way Operating Rules 1.5 and 1.6, and Maintenance
of Way Sat*ty Rules 12.1.1 and 15.7 for operation of company vehicle
under the influence of alcohol; failuro to obey traffic regulations;
failure to be alert and attentive while driving rosutdng In accident
and extensive damage to company property; and
As a corwequenoe of the violation inferred 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 Claimant whole
for ail time
last
commencing August 25, 2007.
FINDIN
G,
Upon tire whole record and all the evince, 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 duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the
Parties and of tire subject matter. and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of
the hearing thereon.
Claimant was arrested for driving under the influence, failing to obey traffic
regulation: and being involved in a costly accident.
The Carrier wrote Claimant September 5, 2007, setting an investigation:
H...to
develop the facts and place responsibility, if any, in connection with
Page 2 PLB NO. 5850 Award No.
Case No. 337
possible violation of Rules 1.5 and 1.6 of the Maintenance of Way
Operating Rules, effective October 31, 2004, and Rule 12.1.1 and 12.7 of the
Maintenance of Way Safety Rules, in effect October 30, 2005, as
supplemented or amended, concerning your allegedly operates company
vehicle under the Influence of alcohol, alleged carelessness of the safety of
yourself and others by falling to obey traffic regulations concerning driving
under the influence of alcohol, alleged failure to be alert and attentive
while drfvlng company vehicle resulting in accident and excessive damage
to company property at approximately 5:00 PM on August 25, 2007, while
working as driver on the grapple truck."
Claimant at the outset submitted a wren confession stating In part, "1 except
full
responsibility for my actions."
This Is a plea of guK pum and simple. Then was no need to pursue this matter
further simply to prove his confession was true.
A look at Claimant's record reveals he was hired on May 4, 1993. This Is his first
experience in a discipline hearing In nine years of service. This is a serious violation
and the resulting damage to the overturned truck was costly, but In first time Rule 1.5
violations, most individuals are instructed to contact the EAP and follow their directive
promptly and to the letter. Claimant i: to be given that chance. He must, within 30 days
of being notified of this Award, follow through. If
successful,
he is to be returned to
service with all his seniority rights unmstrlctad but without pay for any tine lost
Should Claimant not avail this last chance, the dismissal will stand.
Claim sustained In accordance with the Findings.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute Identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(:) be made. The Carrier Is ordered to make the
award effective on or before 30 days following the daft the award Is adopted.
Page 3
PLB NO. 5850
&44
j1iAi&
Robert L. Nicks, Chairman & Naraal Member
ftd D. Tanner, For the Employees
Dated:
3k)-71C9
Award No.
Case No. 337
Samantha Rogers, For tf~Csrrler
PUBUC LAW BOARD NO. 51;50
Award No.
Case No. 335
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
tARTIES TO O·SPIITE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on June 9,1006 when Claimant T.
Mailboy was dismissed for alleged violation of Maintenance of Way
Operating Rules 1.8-Drug and Alcohol, and 1.6-Conduct, and
Engineering instrvetion 15.15-Motor Vehicle Operating for operation
of company vehicle under a suspended driver's license and while
under the influence of alcohol; and
_. As a consequence of the vlolddon referred to In part 1 the Gamier
shall Immediately return the Claimant to service with seniority,
vacation and all other rites unimpaired, remove any mention of this
incident from Claimant's personal record, and make Claimant whole
for a6 time lost commencing April 25, 2006, the date claimant was
initloily withheld from service pending investigation.
FINQINt3S
Upon the
whole record and all
the evidence, the Board finds that the parties
herein are Carrier arc! Employee within the meaning of tire 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 April 25, 2006, the Carrier wrote Claimant to advise an Investigation was being
established:
..... to determine all facts and place responsibility K any, In your misused of
company vehicle resulting In your arrest on
April 24,
3006. You are being
withheld from service pending this investigation.
Pago Z PLB NO. 5850 Award No.
Case No. 335
You are in possible violation of rules 1.5 Drug and Alcohol, 1.6 Conduct of
the Maintenance of Way Operating Rules and rule 15.15 Motor Vehicle
Operation of the Engineering Instructions.
You may arrange for representation in line with the provisions of
agreement or schedule governing your working conditions; and you may
likewise arrange for the attendance of any witness you desire, at your own
expense."
Item 1 of the Statement of Claim lays out he was being charged, "...for operation
of a company vehicle under a suspended driver's license and while under the influence
of alcohol." There exists no controversy concerning the charges. The Carrier furnished
sufficient evidence that stands unrefined as Claimant, for whatever reason, did not
attend the Investigation
and has
done so at his own peril.
Claimant, through his Representative, requested a last-minute postponement
which was denied by the Carrier. The reason given for the request was for personal
business. A reason given such as personal business, is so generic that the real reason
could be anything. A last minute request to postpone the Investigation simply because
of personal masons was rightfully rejected by the Carrier,
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Clalmant(s) not be made.
Robert L. Hicks, Chairman & Neutral Member
David D. Tanner, For the Employees Samantha Rogers,
Fort
a Carrier
Dated: .