PUM-17-C y?W BOARD 6155
Case No. 36
war : No. 36
Carrier's File No. 1031113
,.rcani=ation's File No. LCMCM AST96
_i_~!3 Code 106
..__--~._= Engineer C. R. McMasters
PARTIES TO
=-E
BROTHERHOOD
.CF
-CCC~!C'==-;- _i'iE=RS
UNION PACI==Z ? =-=7
;C=_~
Statement of
Appeal ..f
t
.e - a_s -~-: e_ 2 Disciwline assessed to
Engineer C. _'.. 'fc'fast=_s =-.. recuest the expungement of
discic__re assess=_-_d =___ ay for any and all time lost with
all seniority a._~ -:acat_~__ rights restored unimpaired.
Action taken as a res___ of a formal hearing held October
18, 1995.
Findings:
Upon a_'_ the e-r_d=_nce and the entire record, this Board
finds the parties herein ;_e Carrier and Employees within the
meaning of the Railway La-,._ Act, as amended, and that this Board
has jurisdicticn of the =a_tias and over the dispute involved
herein..
The
employed
later.
a / _
C_a-_-11aa~
a
as a Clerk,
._ was December 26, 1972. She was
was promoted to Engineer several years
on the day she sustai_-_ad a personal injury, Qctober 8, 1996,
she was working in her capaci_y as Engineer on Yard Job YPC35-07.
She went on duty at 11:3 p.m. on October 7, 1996, at the yard in
Pocatello, Idaho. R.pcrtad=y, between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m., she
detrained from her locc~:.cti;s near M? 211 in order to get to a
crew bus. S'e chcsa to ste .._= the engine on the south side of
Track 2 where zh=re was a s__arp incline. The crew bus was
waiting at the bottom
of
the hill to transport the crew. When
tile Claimant
Stepped
C-=
t_=- -7-g_nE, she twisted her ankle.
Si12
PLB 6155 - 36
failed to report the incicent == the time because she did not
believe she had injured herself. However, at around 7:30 a.m.,
she did contact the Manager of Yard Operations and indicated that
her ankle was swollen and za___ful.
Ps a result o= the _-- r :, -he Claimant was asked to submit
to a drug screen test ant-- :n--s work. The drug screen was
negative.
By cerzifled mail =__--_ ~_a-_-_ant was sent a Notice of
Waiver/Hearing Offer da=ec ~__=.-.=r 11, 1996. She was advised
that her actions on the da =f =na accident conceivably violated
Rules 70.1, 1.1.1 and 1._.- :_ -n-on Pacific Rules, effective
April 10, !'9131. She was ===-e= a waiver of hearing with a Level
1 Discipline, elevated =_ a -_-: _- 2 Discipline, because her
injury resu_red in lcsn ____ Claimant rejected the waiver
and requested an _aves~i;a=-=n, -.which was held or. October 18,
1996.
presented at hearing, the
Carrier deC_>_ed the ~._~--._'_ -_-1ty of having v=Olated the ci=ed
rules, which read in
Rule 70.1 Safety
Responsibilities
Employees are responsible for their personal safety and are
accountable for their behavior as a condition of employment.
Employees must take every precaution to prevent injury to
themselves, other emr_oyees, and the public. Employees must
report any dangerous condition or unsafe practice.
Employees must be aware c? and work within the limits of
their physical capabilities and not use excessive force to
accomplish tasks. Good judgment is required in fulfilling
job responsibilities
safely.
Past practices that do not conform to the rules are
unacceptable.
Rule 1.1 Safety
Safety is the most important element in performing duties.
Obeying the rules is essential to job safety and continued
employment.
1.1.1 Maintaining a Safe Course
?LB 6155 - 36
In case of doubt or uncertainty, take the safe course.
1.1.2 Alert and Attentive
Employees must be careful to prevent injuring
themselves or others. They must be alert and attentive
when performing their duties and plan their work to
avoid injury.
The Carrier issued t..= Claimant a Level 1 Discipline for the
rules infraction.. However, _= was increased to a Level 2
Discipline because the injury _ caused her to miss work.
The
Organization appease;
the discipline through the proper
channels and
it
is now bef:_e =his Board for its ruling.
r===--R'S
POSITION
The Carrier claims =..=_e was adecuate warning about the
safety concerns centered ar;und the ballast in the yard. They
believe the Claimant could :.=--e used a different alternative to
get down off the engine. =..r one thing, they claim, she could
have disembarked on the cotsr side of the
engine where
there was
a flat walk way. They asses= she may have also avoided injuring
her ankle if she had bee:: wearing footwear that had more than
just the minimum safety recu_rements.
The Carrier contends the Claimant was afforded a fair and
impartial hearing. The discipline issued, they say, was in
keeping with the Upgrade Policy and was reasonable in light of
the rule
infraction.
.-_ON'S POSITION
The
organization argues
.::e Upgrade Policy used by the
Carrier resulted
in
excessi-re discipline.
In
addition, they
believe the policy is unfair and p=e-udges employees by its very
nature. They say the
employees
feel =hreatened and afraid to
fill out the
injury reports
r=. :=__t by rule for fear they will
be disciplined.
They maintain the C'_a-_-=-='s accident was just that an
unfortunate accident. They believe the Carrier must accept its
share of the blame since it was well known the ballast in the
yard was unsafe, but, the Carrier failed to rectify the problem.
Moreover, they say it was cov-.on knowledge that many crews would
?LB 6155 - 36
a
not work in the area at n-;hz, not only because the terrain was
hazardous, but, also because of poor lighting. They say the
- Carrier could a_^.d should have assured proper lighting in the
area. The Crganization insists the Carrier has the authority and
responsibility to correct hazardous situations before accidents
occur. After a11, they asses-, the Carrier is responsible for
providing a safe work env-rcrment and should have taken the
-- necessarv szecs to correct ze hazardous conditions in this area.
The Organizaticn further maintains that the area in question is
so dangerous other crafts ref'_se to work there. They point out
that it is dart w1zhouz ~_z_f-cial light and the tracks are close
_ together wit' tra-ns enter--g and leaving the area at 70 mph.
They say the Ci~-_-nanz -_ __a-:e been ass-steel by a lantern or
flashlight, but, _^__ Carr_== 'as failed to issue such equipment
to Engineers.
- The Orga=.izazicn a_sc _a-sod several- procedural arguments.
For one, they say the ..ear-ng Officer asked leading questions o=
r
Company w-tn=So'e5. Tle,
_=-3z:
trozested the fact at least one
w'tness
t-;
w~z :~zt -resent
1~:-_
testify. They also
Iwn-nizsubje ma=ata=n the __ _.. c_; dtheClai
·..ar____c~ .____=..
cte dtheClai ma nttoa
- probable cause drug scr=en. The Organization also protested the
,. admission of notes into -'e record when the author was not
available for cross examination.
- Furthermore, ___e .,_,_n.__zion argues that if the Claimant
had dismcunt=_d the engine on the north side she would have beer.
in violation. of Rule 8_.=, w''ch reads in part:
E_
. When practicable, get on or off equipment on the side away
from the main line or close clearance.
For all of these reasons, the organization submits the
- discipline issued to the ,._a-mant should be rescinded.
DECISION
The Board must decide whether the Claimant did a pruden_
thing in detraining on the side of the locomotive where there :as
a sharp incline. In rev-owing the photographs submitted by the
Carrier two things are cb·r-ous. The first is the close prox_m_zy
of tracks 1 and 2. The other is that there wet=_ two piles o_°
- ballast between the two tracks. Even thouch there seemed _. ca
testimony that the area between the two tracks was more level,
this Board does not believe it was so level there was any
t
PLB 6155 - 36
4
assurance the Claimant would not have slipped getting down on
that side of the track. Furthermore, if she had she could have
fallen onto the adjoining track placing her in serious danger;
particularly if she had hurt herself to where she could not have
moved out of the way quickly. True she may have been able to see
.. a train approaching before she cot down off the locomotive, but,
the question we have to ask =s whether it was imprudent for her
to choose to get off on the o~:-.er side since Tracks 1 and 2 we-e
-- so close. We think not. The Scard is simply not convinced that
the ballast between the two 7:_acks was so much safer she had an
obvious choice. Furthermere, -_ she had fallen between the two
__ tracks, the chance of an eve-. ~cra serious situation existed.
Therefore, we de not belie-:e _=-- decision made by the Claimant to
`- dismount on the south side c- t*-e locomotive was so unreasonable
F_
as to warrant discipline.
The claim is sustained.
l/~.~ .:
L-_
r,
`'~Zamp ini
Impartial Neu=ral and Chairperson
Submitted this 14" day of Jan7-:ary, 2000.
PLB 6155 - 36
5