Award No.
Case No. 34
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO
r
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM.
1. That the Carrier's decision to remove Western, Steve Myers from service
was unjust.
2. That the Carrier now reinstate Claimant hiyers with seniority, vacation, all
benefit rights unimpaired and pay for all wage loss as a result of Investigation
held 9:00 a.m. February 11, 1997 continuing forward and/or otherwise made
whole, because the Carrier did not introduce substantial, credible evidence
that proved that the Claimant violated the rules enumerated in their decision,
and even if Claimant violated the rules enumerated in the decision, removal
front service is extreme and harsh discipline under the circumstances.
3. That the Carrier violated the Agreement particularly but not limited to Rule
13 and Appendix I1 because the Carricr did not introduce substantial,
credible evidence that proved the Claimant violated the rules enumerated in
their decision.
FINDINGS
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
constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and tile Parties to
this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
Claimant, subsequent to an Investigation, was found guilty of the following charge:
"...your failure to comply with written instructions issued in General
Roadmaster.Jetter of April 29, 1996 ...."
For the above reason, Claimant was "dismissed from employment for violation of Rules 1.6 and 1.13
of the Safety
Rules
and General Responsibilities For All Employees ...."
Page 2 pt,,B /Jo . 58 ·`M -
Award No.? y
Case hIo, 34
From the record it developed that Claimant, following a 90 day suspension, was also obligated
to work with a Cartier counselor before he could return to service.
Whether lie did or did not work with the counselor is an unknown, but subsequent to the
expiration of the 90 day suspension, Claimant commenced a series of calls to various departments of
the Carrier, leaving a slew of voice mail messages that bordered on harassment. The letter of April
29, 1996, was issued to Claimant instructing him to cease and desist such calls to all but the
counselor, and the only message he was to relay to the counselor was where and at what number he
1
could be contacted. ~utlice to say, Claimant did not discontinue the calls. Carrier had a list of such
calls typed and presented as evidence at the Investigation.
Despite the fact that Carrier sent the notice of charges to two addresses (one, the last
recorded address of record, and the second, to an address Claimant left on the voice mail), Claimant
was not in attendance at the Investigation. His Representative did all he could do to protect
Claimant's interests, but without Claimant's presence there was only so much he could do.
The evidence was ovenvhelming The charge of failure to follow instructions was clearly
established by substantial evidence. The discipline of dismissal will stand. The claim is declined.
ANV AkD
Claim denied.
This Board, alter consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award
favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
Page 3 Award No.
3y
Case No 34
Robert L. Hicks, Chairman 8: Neutral Member
C, F. Foose abor N(ember Greg Griffll Carrier ivicmber
Dated j~(r)e g~ ~~(G~