PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5850
Award No.
Case No. 360
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
{The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when Claimant TSR.
Ruiz
was
issued a Level S Thirty (30) Day Record Suspension and a probation
period of One (1) year for violation of Maintenance of Way Operating
Rules 6.2.1 - Train Location; Rule 6.3.1 - Main Track Authority and
6.19 - Flag Protection. The Claimant was charged in failure to protect
his gang and equipment, when train BNSF 6741-East had to be
placed into emergency while a machine was occupying the track.
The Carrier failed to provide a fair and impartial hearing. The
Claimant should be paid any loss of pay commencing October 27,
2006 forward and or otherwise made whole, and the discipline
should be removed from his record.
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in part 1 the Carrier
shall immediately correct the Claimants discipline records and make
Claimants whole for all time lost.
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 the Parties to this dispute were given due notice
of
the hearing thereon.
The dispute is as set forth in Item 1 of the Statement of Claim. The discipline is
also set forth in Item 1.
Claimant is a Foreman in charge of a rail gang. He knew he had the responsibility
for the crew in regard to track warrants.
He secured trackage rights for the bulk
of
his crew, but he failed to secure rights
PLB NO. 5850
Page 2 Award No.
Case No. 3&0
for the Speedswing Operator and an Assistant Foreman who intended to enter the track
some 11 miles down the track from the main body.
The Speedswing Operator and the Assistant Foreman entered the track in front of
an ongoing train. The Assistant Foreman and the Speedswing Operator were not
protected.
When Clainiant Communicated with tire Assistant Foreman, he railed to remind
him he was not protected and would not be protected until he attached himself to
Claimant's Form B.
Part of a Foreman's salary takes into consideration his or her responsibility for
their crew. Granted, if any crewmembers acted contrary to the Rules or to the Foreman
in charge, an Investigation would be established with the Foreman testifying for the
Carrier.
In this instance, Claimant as the headman on a crew has to secure track warrant
protection for each member of his crew. This Claimant failed to do.
AWARD
Claim denied.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
44X-J~
Robert L. Hicks, Chairman & Neutral Member
David D. Tanner, For the Employees Glenn W. Caughron, For the C~r
Dated:
J~/
