(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIE5'1'0 DISPUTE
(The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
STAT
F.h
ENT OF IM.
1. That the Carrier's decision to issue a Level 3 Suspension for Central Region,
Trackman Paul F. Glasby from service for twenty (20) days was unjust.
2. That the Carrier now rescind their decision and expunge all discipline and
transcripts and pay for all wage loss as a result of Investigation held 1:00
p.m., May 8, 1997 and/or otherwise made whole, because the Carrier did not
introduce substantial, credible evidence that proved that the Claimant violated
the rules enumerated in their decision, and even if the Claimant violated the
rules enumerated in the decision, suspension from set-vice is extreme and harsh
discipline under the circumstances.
3. That the Carrier violated the Agreement particularly but not limited to Rule
13 and Appendix 11, because the Carrier did not introduce substantial,
credible evidence that proved the Claimant violated the rules enumerated in
their decision.
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.
Claimant was notified ofan Investigation to develop the facts and place responsibility, if any,
for his failure to report for duty on March 20, March 24, April 4 and April 10, 1997.
Following the Investigation, the Carrier, in the belief that it had established sufficient evidence
of Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed, suspended Claimant from service for 20 calendar
days. ,
a
Page 2 Award No, Y
Case No. 44
Prior to these charges, Claimant had undergone some type of eye surgery, and for six weeks
subsequent to the surgery he had follow-up exams on a weekly basis, either on a Tuesday or a
Thursday. Claimant stated that he had advised his Foreman in advance of March 20 and April 10 that
he had these appointments, but the Foreman testified Claimant did not advise him of his need to be
off.
Thus, this Board is confronted with a credibility issue. In this appellant forum, this Board
must credit the decision maker unless there is evidence in the record to show that the findings are
arbitrary and capricious or that he was substantially prejudiced to Claimant so as to deny lutn a fair
and impartial Investigation as called for in the Rule. There is nothing in this record to establish either
of these exceptions, thus this Board defers to the credibility findings of the Investigating Officer who
was present to observe the demeanor of the witness and listen to the tenor of his testimony.
Regarding the April 4 absence, there is unrebutted evidence that Claimant did experience a
hemorrhaging in the eye that required prompt attention, but Claimant was not sedated and either he
or his wife could have at some time during the day, called someone in authority to advise of the need
to be off.
This Board has addressed only 3 of the 4 unauthorized absences Claimant was charged with
as that is all the absences Carrier listed in its disciplinary letter, but these three unauthorized absences
are sufficient to warrant discipline, particularly in view of Claimant's work history of being the
subject of an Investigation for leaving work without authorization or being off without authorization
on eleven occasions since 1984.
Under the circumstances. the 20 day suspension is more than justified. The claim will be
?o~g ,uL~.
, Sf~S~
Page 3 Award No. `!I
Case No. 44
denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
DEB
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award
favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made
Robert L. Hicks, Chairman & Neutral Member
C. F, Foose, Labor Member Crriffin, ear ler Member
Dated