The dismissal ofMr. C. Laird for alleged violation ofUSOR General Rule H for alleged falsification oftrack inspection records during July 2014 was arbitrary, capricious, excessive and in violation ofthe Agreement (System File
C l 40902/IC-BMWED-2014-00162 ICE).
As a consequence ofthe violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimant C. Laird shall be granted the remedy in accordance with Rule 33(i) ofthe Agreement."
By notice dated August 11, 2014, the Claimant was directed to attend a formal investigation on charges that the Claimant allegedly had violated Carrier Rules by allegedly falsifying track inspections and track inspection records during July 2014. The investigation was conducted, after a postponement, on August 18, 2014. By letter dated September 2, 2014, the Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty as charged and was being dismissed from the Carrier's service. The Organization subsequently filed the instant claim on the Claimant's behalf, challenging the Carrier's decision to discipline the Claimant. The Carrier denied the claim.
The Carrier contends that the instant claim should be denied in its entirety because substantial evidence in the record establishes that the Claimant is guilty as charged, because there are no mitigating circumstances that would warrant reducing the discipline
1
PLB 6043
CASE 211
imposed, and because the discipline imposed was warranted and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of the Carrier's discretion. The Organization contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety because the Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof, and because the discipline imposed was arbitrary and unwarranted.
The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this
Board.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of falsifying track inspection records on the Hammond Subdivision in the summer of 2014. The record reveals that the Claimant had been the track inspector for the territory where a derailment occurred, and that his last inspection was dated July 27, 2014. His supervisor was able to review a security camera from a gas station directly across the street from where the derailment occurred and determined that the Claimant's hi-rail vehicle never crossed that portion of the track. Moreover, the Claimant had never been given track authority for that segment of track on July 27, 2014; and, therefore, the Claimant could not have possibly inspected it. The Claimant subsequently admitted that what was submitted in his regulatory reports regarding his activity on July 27 was not accurate. There was further evidence that the Claimant falsified his inspection reports on July 8, 9, and 17 that year. The Claimant admitted that he did not conduct full inspections on that subdivision, although he entered dates into the regulatory inspection records that said that he did.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to
2
PLB 6043
CASE 211
July 24, 2018 July 24, 2018