PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5830

PARTIES TO

'T;

STATEMEN1 OF CLAIM:

Award No.
Case No. 370

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad {Former (ATSF Railway Company)

The Carrier violated the Agreement when Claimant R. B. Rubendall

(8454573) was issued a Level S 30-day Record Suspension for violation of MWOR 1.2.5; Reporting; MWOR 1.2.7, Furnishing information and MWOR 1.6, Conduct on May 10 and 11, 2007 concerning misrepresented facts and providing conflicting information to a Supervisor: The Claimant should be paid for all wages lost and made whole commencing April 2·f, 2008 and continuing forward ancfor otherwise made whole.


As a consequence of the violation referred to in part 9 the Can-ier shall immediately corm the Claimants discipline records and make Claimants whole for all time lost.


Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the pardes 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.

On May 23, 2007, the Cams wrote a letter~to Claimant advising of an Investigation

being convened for:

"...the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility, if any, regarding your alleged misrepresentation of facts while providing conflicting information to Mr: Mooney on May 10 and 11, 2007 regarding your reporting of a personal, injury:" The Investigation was held June 14, 2007, and the carrier did assess Claimant the

Page 2 Award No.


discipline set forth in the Statement of Claim.

Claimant sought permission from his Supervisor to be off two days to undergo chiropractor treatments. The Supervisor gave him permission to be off the two days.

Claimant was concerned about losing two days' pay. He even offered to pay for the two days if the Supervisor would not mark him absent:

That approach was somewhat surprising and the first time this Board has heard of such an offer. In lieu, the Supervisor said he could mark off one day of his floating vacation days anti one day as a personal leave day thus no lost pay:

Claimant refused to use the one day of his vacation and the persona! leave day. He then came forth with laying blame for an injury that occurred when he was loading scrap material*.

Claimant finally filled out a report which was within the 72 hour window of reporting skeletal muscle, problems; thus begins the incident that has led to then disciple Carrier assessed.

The record of the indent is fully revealed in the Investigation that Claimant was not injured anti did finally accept two days' pay by allowing the Carrier to pay him for one, day vacation and ono tonal leave day.

This Board so finds that the Carrier furnished sufficient evidence of Claimant's actions in this case. He lost no time when assessed a 30-day record suspension.




      Claim denied.

ORDER

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that

PLB NQ. 5850

Page 3

an award favorable to the Claimants) not lie made.

Robert L. Hicks, Chairman & Neutral Member

David D. Tanner, For the Employees

Dated: // II/t>

Award No.
Case No. 370

Samantha Roger,, For the, darrier