PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5850
Award No.
Case No. 375
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATSF Railway Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement when Claimant K. A. Phillips
(1652007) was issued a 1Q-day Record Suspension for violation of
MOWOR 1.15 Duty - Reporting. or Absence on November 30; 2806.
The Claimant should be paid for all wages lost and made whole
commencing November 30, 2006 and continuing forward and/or
otherwise made whole.
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in. part t the Carrier
shaft immediately correct the Claimants discipline
records and make
Claimants whole for ail tune lost.
FINDIN
G
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 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 hearing thereon:
On October 12, 2008, the Carrier advised Claimant an Investigation would be
convened:
"...to determine all facts
and place responsibility, if
any, its your alleged
failure to follow
instructions given by Roadmaster, Phil liausler to report, to
Atwater,, California at 05W hours on October 11, 2You am in possible
violation of Rules 1.6 Conduct, Rule 1.13 Reporting and Complying with
instructions and Rule 1.15 duty Reporting or Absence of the Maintenance
of Way Operating Rules in effect Sunday, October 31, 2004 with revisions
up to September 2, 2006.".
After a review of the transcript, it is
this Board's position there was a
PLB NO. 5850
Page 2
miscommunication in this case between Claimant and his Supervisor.
Award No.
Case
loo.
375
Claimant stated that he simply was to notify his Supervisor ten minutes prior to
his arrival to establish a meeting point. According to Claimant, no specific place was
established, nor actual time set for the meeting.
Such instructions left the time and location blank with the ten minute window in
which the meeting place and tithe would be established.
Claimant was late: The crew's starrt time was 0500 hours. Claimant arrived at
0533 hours. He should have been at the lodging facility at G00 when the crew left to go
to work.
There is no Rule preventing Claimant from going to his home at the end of his
workday, but he is obligated to be on time at the start of the workday. When Claimant
met with his Supervisor at 0533 hours, he was 33 minutes late.
AAR
Q
Claim denied
C?RDg
R
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimants) not be made
.-.
f
Robert L. Hicks,
hairrnan
& Neutral Member
f
~IICII··Y
III~Y~1
David D: Tann , For the Employe",
Dated:
Samantha Rogers, For the %arrier