PUBLIC LAW 130ARD NO. $830
Award No.
3672
Case No. 352
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIE TO D§PUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(AT8F Railway Company)
§TMMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when Claimant Axes Zarnora was
given a Level $ 30-Day Record Suspension wren the Carrier ibund
the Claimant In violation of Maintenance of Way Operating Rules 1.·
and 1.4. The Claimant did seek permission for vacation and had no
intention to incorrectly enter payroll incorrectly Into the payroll
system. The Claimant should be paid any ken of pay commencing
August 14, 2!108 forward and or otherwise made whole, and the
discipline should be removed !iron his record.
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in part 1 the Cattier
shall immediately correct the Claimant's discipline records and make
Clalrtuntt whole for all titre loot.
Upon the whole record and all
the evideto:s, the Boned fdst that On partlss
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 hewing tlierraan.
On Juror 17, 2008, the Carrier wrote Clement advising of an Investigation:
"...to develop all facts and place responsibility, if any, when
you ably
paid yourself a total of 20 hours of regular time in PARSIPATS for 2
working days, when you were absent! Monday, June g and Wednesday,
June 11, 2008, You are In possible violation of Rule 1.16 Duty-Ropordng or
Absence,
Rule
1.4 Carrying out Rules and Reporting Violations and Rule
1.8 Conduct, subsection (4) i31shonest, and (8) Immoral of the Maintenance
of Way Operating Rules M effect Sunday, October
31, 2004 with
revisions
Page
x
Case No. 3S2
up to April 14, 2048. Also std under this Rids 1.8 Conduct, any act of
hostility, misconduct or willful disrerd or negligence atctIng the
interest of the company or Its smptoysas is cause for dlsmisaal and must
be reported. Indiifarence to duty, or to the psrlormsn" of duly, wilt not be
worst"."
The Carrier then wrote Claimant on August 14, x008, assessing discipline of a
Level S 30-day deferred record suspension plus s 3 year probation.
From the transcript of the Investigation, It Is clear Claimant was oft June 9, 11 S
12 of 2008. On June 12 he Mquestsd a tat" (a one day
vacation1
taken with the
permission of authority. On Jung 9, he put in for a taW with no o4ection from his
Supervisor. On Juno i t, he marked off sick, also with the apprwal of his Supervisor.
His problem leading to this Imrosdgation is how he prepared or (reported his own
payroll. On June 9 wizen he told his Supervisor he took a floster, he marked the payroll
as though he worked. On the 11"', he called In ono hour before starting time leaving a
voice message declaring he was sick, yet era the payroll he requested a day's pay,
Claimant was candid about the payroll claimed when he testified, but he used the
wrong coda for the 9'" and claimed a
full workday for the 11v' when he
hard marked of
sick. This claiming time for a day not worked is a serious violation.
The 80-day record suspension is apt, but the 3-year probation Is changed to a 12
month review.
Claim sustained in accordance with than Findings.
ORDER
This Board, after co»sition of the dispute kfentifted above, twreby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(:) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the
page
3 Award Mo.'~"
Case No. 362
award afiec#we on or before 30 days following ttw data the award is adopted.
Robert L. lclcs, ChalrMSK& 14040001 bar
Dovid D. Tanner, For
late
Employees
lenn W. Cauuvhron, For the
Dated:
X/~ ?~