BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6043
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
and
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
Case
Nos,
5 and 6
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. The discipline [thirty (30) day suspension] imposed upon Mr. B.
Harris for alleged `...violation of rule 1590, 1720, and 1730 from the
Maintenance of Way Safety Rule Book, when the rail you were
handling was apparently more than the machine was designed to
handle causing the rail to strike Mr. Madison on the leg who was not
in the clear.*** on January 6, 1997, was arbitrary, capricious,
unwarranted, inappropriate, exceedingly harsh and in violation of the
Agreement (Carrier's File 276 Mof W).
2. The discipline [thirty (30) day suspension] imposed upon Mr. C.
Madison for alleged `...violation of rule T of the Rules for
Maintenance of Way and Structures, Dangerous Positions, and rule
No. 1260 from the Maintenance of Way Safety Rule Book, when you
failed to properly place yourself in the clear while handling rail at
Beaumont, MS on January 6, 1997, was arbitrary, capricious,
unwarranted, inappropriate, exceedingly harsh and in violation of the
Agreement (Carrier's File 275 Mof W).
3. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Mr.
B. Harris shall receive the benefit of the remedy prescribed by the
parties in Rule 33 (i).
4. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (2) above, Mr.
C. Madison shall receive the benefit of the remedy prescribed by the
parties in Rule 33 (i).
FINDINGS
On January 6, 1997, Claimants B. Harris and C. Madison were assigned to a
mobile gang in Beaumont, Mississippi, which was replacing welded rail at MP BH2.4.
No-
bo'l3
Aldo
NO- 1i
b
Claimant Harris was temporarily operating a burro crane removing existing rail and
Claimant Madison was assisting him on the ground by securing "rail dogs" to the rail
allowing the crane to lift the piece of rail. Claimants were instructed to retrieve a 200foot piece of new rail located about 100 feet ahead of the crane. Claimant Harris placed
the boom over the rail while Claimant Madison secured the rail dogs. While Claimant
Harris attempted to lift the rail, the boom brake and boom-action.
of
the crane failed and
the rail swung out and struck Claimant Madison in the leg resulting in a personal injury.
Subsequently, the Claimants were notified to appear for an investigation to
determine their responsibility,
if
any, in the personal injury sustained by Claimant
Madison. On January 21, 1997, a hearing was held and it was determined that the
Claimants did not perform their duties in accordance with the various safety rules.
Consequently, Claimants Harris and Madison each received a thirty-day suspension.
The Organization filed a claim on behalf of the Claimants contending that the
Carrier did not meet its burden of proof. The Organization argues that the crane that
Claimant Harris was operating on the date in question was removed from service ten
years prior to this claim because of design problems with respect to handling large pieces -
of rail and because of mechanical defects. The Organization points out that subsequent to
the incident involved in this claim, the Carrier removed the crane from service again. The
Organization contends that, according to witnesses, the Claimants were performing their
duties in the usual and customary manner.
The parties being unable to resolve the issue, this matter came before this Board.
2
jai,
is
A~o · Co
oK3
mss- 5 6
This Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by the Organization, and
we find them to be without merit. -
With respect to the substantive issue, 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 Claimants were guilty of safety rule violations causing the accident
which resulted in the injury to Mr. Madison. The record reveals that Mr. Madison was
careless in his attempt to remove himself from danger before he signaled to Mr. Harris to
move the piece of rail. In addition, Mr. Harris was guilty of several safety rule violations
when he moved the equipment before ascertaining the safety of Mr. Madison's position.
Both of the Claimants were inattentive to safety rules, and their inattention played a role
in the injury to Mr. Madison that resulted.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to
support the guilty finding, we next-turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed.
This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
The record reveals that the Claimants in this case had clean disciplinary records
and there is no showing that they had ever been guilty of any previous safety violations.
Claimant Harris has been employed by the Carrier for twenty-six years and Claimant
Madison has been employed by the Carrier for two years. Given their seniority and their
unblemished service records, this Board must find that the Carrier acted unreasonably and
without just cause when it issued the Claimants t4irty-day suspensions. Although the
3
^$
No-foo43
,AWD NOS'
SL'
6
injury to Mr. Madison was a serious result of the inattention of the two Claimants, this
Board finds that a ten-day suspension would have been an appropriate response to the
various rule violations. Consequently, we hereby order that the thirty-day suspension be
reduced to a ten-day suspension and the Claimants be made whole for the difference.
AWARD
Claim sustained in part and denied in part. The thirty-day suspensions of the two
Claimants shall be reduced to ten-day suspensions and they shall be made whole for the
difference.
C E MEMBER
Dated:
P TER R I4~RS
tral Mem r
4
ATIONMO V E 4R
Dated:
MLLa '~Tn°~O\.