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, a Section Foreman at Waynoka, Oklahoma, was driving a 2 ton dual rear axle dump truck when, in an effort to spot the truck by backing into an access road. cut too sharply causing the right front wheel to run into the ditch, hanging the front end on a culvert.
During Claimants effort to free the truck, his Supervisor came upon the scene, took charge of the effort and moved the truck with the use of a front end loader by dragging the unit off the culvert.
The front end mechanism was damaged causing the Carrier some $400 for repairs, thus Carrier cited Claimant for violating several Safety Rules, one of which, Rule S-12.8, sets out the
guidelines an employee must follow when backing a vehicle. The Carrier found Claimant culpable of the charges and assessed a level one discipline of a Formal Reprimand limiting Its effectiveness to one year. (This is as provided for in the disciplinary policy.)
The end result of Claimant's actions is undisputed. The truck was hung up on a culvert and some $400 damages resulted. Thus, this Board finds it necessary to determine the why and if the Carrier provided substantial evidence of Claimant's culpability.
The main rule of concern is the back-up rule. It is in two parts setting out the responsibility of the driver when backing. If available, a groundman is required to guide the driver. If none is available, the driver must walk around the vehicle taking note of any potential hazard that is to be avoided.
Despite Carrier's efforts to show Claimant could have found someone to act as a guide in backing, it is clear the crew was working three to four hundred feet from the access road. Claimant did not commandeer one of the workers as he had walked around his truck and made note of the potential hazards before he attempted to back in. His only error was in judgement, in turning too sharply that led to the right front wheel in running off the roadway and into the ditch causing the track to be hung up on a culvert. It appears to this Board at this juncture that Claimant simply erred in judging the degree of his turn. It cannot be said that he violated any part or portion of the back-up rule. The other rule, which obligates an employee to take the safe course does not quite fit in this case.
Regarding the damages, this Board cannot determine from the record how they occurred. The question of whether the damage was incurred at the instant the truck became hung up on the culvert or whether it was incurred when the front end loader dragged the unit off the culvert cannot be answered as this Board is confronted with irreconcilable dispute in facts with conflicting opinions as between the Roadmaster and Claimant and his peer.