PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5850
Award No.
Case No. 338
(8rothedood of
Maintenance of Way Employee
?ARM
TO DISPUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on June 9, 2006 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 Instruction 15.15-Motor Vehicle Operating for operation
of company vehicle under a suspended driver's license and while
under the influence of alcohol; and
x.
As a cormsquence of the vlotatlon referred to in part 1 the Carrier
shall tely
WMMW
return the Claimant to service with seniority,
vacation and ail other rights unimpaired, remove any mention of this
Incident from Claimant's personal record, and make Claimant whole
for a8 tbne loot commencing April 25, 2006, the dab claimant was
Initially
withheld from service pending invostigation.
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 duly consddfd by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the
Parties and of the subject matbsr, and the Parties W 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 ail facts and place responsibility If any, in your misused of
company vehicle resulting In your arrest on
April 24, 2006.
You are being
withhold from service pending this investigation.
Page 2 PLB NO. 5850 Award No.
Case No. 338
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 Ststernont 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 Caller
furnished
sufficient evidence that stands unmfuted 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 reasons was rightfully rejected by the Carrier.
AWA
RD,?
Claim denied.
ORDE
·.3
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimants) not be m.
Robert L. Hicks, Chairman ANMember
David D. Tanner, For
the
Employees
Dated:
.~'7'(`~'~;
Samantha Rogers,
Fort
a Carrier