PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5850
Award No. 3'
Case No. 350
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PA rIER TO
DISPUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe RaBroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Cam"")
3THEAAENT OF CLA·ilt:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when CtaftNUNs MW Ards and DR
Vinson was given a Twenty (20) Day Record Suspension when the
Carrier found the Ctaknsnb In vin for repair of a vertical split
head rail defect on Track 1433 In Mykaws Yawl. The Carrier taped to
identitV any Rule or Engineering instructions
violated, only providing
a FRA report. The
Claimants should to paid my loss of pay, travel
time and mile*" to the Inv~ton, and the one should be
remowm! from his record
2. As a
consequenar of the vlohttbn raferrrd to In part 1 the Carrier
shall Inrtnnedately correct the Claimants discipline records and make
Claimants whole for all tine lost.
FINDI
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties
heroin are Carrier and Employee
within
the niesning of the Ralhway Labor ACt, ors
amended. Furdwr,
the Hoard is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the
Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parttn to this dispute were given due notice of
the head" thereon.
The Carrier
on July 2008, wrof a
joint letter to both Claimants advising an
Investigation was being convened for:
"...the purpose of ascertaining the
facts and
delermininO your
responsibility, if any, regarding
your alleged failure to properly repair a
vertical split head rah defect on Trade
1133 at Mykxwa Yard, Houston,
Texss in accordance with BNSF
Engineering
hrstructlOns
on July 20, 2008,
which resulted In an FRA Inspection Report on July 21, 200·."
Page 2 PLB No. 5850 Award No 35'0
Case No. 390
The Carrier assessed each Claimant a 20-day record (deterred( suspension. No
actual suspension,
thus no lost time.
To this Board, the definition of a vertical split hem!
is
apparentO' a
condlttn that
experienced personnel can readily disagree me to what Is or what Is rat a condition
requiring certain actions. When advised of a broken rail, Claimant Vinson immediately
took the track out of service.
The nerd day, Claimants Artis & Vinson went
to
repair the break. They determined
that in
their opinion placing angle bars on each side of the
rail (afbsr drilling
and bolting)
the track was safe fo 10 MPH train* to pass over.
The following day, the Assistant Roachrraster and an FRA Inspector walking the
tracts determined it was a split head and the rail had to be replaced immediately, and It
Was.
What confuses
this Board Is that the two expetlenced employees, one employed
August 8, 1879 (Ards) and Vinson employed August 11, 1980, missed a quarter inch
crack
aft
the top of the rail. One quarter inch Is much greater than a hairline crack. Artls
has been a Track Supervisor since November 1, 2004, Vinson from
June 7, 2007, and to
think that neither one saes a one quarter inch crack at the top of the rail is difficult to
understand.
This Board will sustain the claim to have the records of the two Claimants cleared
of this charge, but by no means does the Board fault the FRA Inspector: This could very
well be a case where train tmfft mar have caused the one quarter Inch crack or that the
old rail (which it was) suddenly cracked on its own. These are pure assumptions on the
part of this Board who has dtlflculty accepting such an oversight o· two experienced
Page 3 PLB NO. 5850 Award No. T°
Case No. 350
track men.
AfD_
Claim sustalned.
ORDE
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the
Claimants) be made. The Carrier to ordered to make then
award effective on or before 30 days following the date the awward la
aced.
Robert L Hicks, Chairman & Mmnbet
-r-
David D. Tanner, For
the Employees
Glenn W. Cacsihron, r ar
a;:f~,