r
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
PUBLIC LA«' BOARD NO. 6319
BROTHERHOOD OF 3LAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES )
Case No. 2
and )
Award No. 2
BELT RAILWAY COMPANY OF CHICAGO 1
Martin H. Malin, Chairman & Neutral Member
D. D. Bartholomay, Employee Member
T. E. Coffev. Carrier Member
Hearing Date: July 21, 2000
STATEMENT OF CLALNI:
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The dismissal of Track Laborer Bruce E. Rutkowski. Jr for his alleged vandalism
to vehicle BRC A-221 during the last quarter of 1998 was without just and
sufficient cause. unsupported and capricious (System File BRC-6509D).
2. Track Laborer Bruce E. Rutkowski, Jr., shall now be '*** reinstated with all
tights unimpaired, be compensated all lost wages, have his record cleared and be
made whole all losses in connection with his wionaful termination.'
FINDINGS:
Public Law Board No. 6319, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds
that Employee and Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, as amended; and, that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and, that the parties
to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon and did participate therein.
On February 18, 1999, Carrier notified Claimant that his employment was terminated,
effective immediately. Pursuant to the Agreement, Claimant requested a formal hearing. By
letter dated February 22, 1999, Carrier scheduled the hearing for February 25, 1999. The letter
charged Claimant with "your alleged vandalism to BRC vehicle A-221 during the last quarter of
1998." The hearing was postponed to and held on March 4, 1999. By letter dated March 9.
1999, Carrier reaffnmed Claimant's dismissal.
The Organization contends that Claimant's due process rights were violated
in
several
respects and that Carrier failed to prove the charge. Most of the Organization's due process
pL$ 10319
14wd z
arguments were also made in Case No. 1. We rejected these arguments in Award No. I and
incorporate our reasoning by reference into this award. We shall address specifically those
arguments made by the Organization that are unique to the instant case.
The Organization contends that the claim should be sustained because the notice charged
Claimant with vandalizing the vehicle during the last quarter of 1998. whereas the evidence
disclosed t-tat the vehicle was taken out of service on or about September 25. 1998. We do not
agree. The transcript reveals that when the Organization objected, the hearing officer recognized
that there :gas an error in the charge and offered the Organization a recess if needed to prepare in
light of the error. The Organization rejected the offer. It is apparent from the transcript that the
Organizat:~n was not prejudiced by the error in the charge. Claimant admitted spray painting the
vehicle bah before and after it was taken out of service. The charge was sufficiently precise to
enable Cla:mant and the Organization to prepare a defense.
On the merits. the Organization contends that Carrier failed to prove the charge. The
record. however. reveals that Claimant admitted spray painting the truck. Although the
Organizaton contends that Claimant merely painted rust spots white, Claimant also admitted
painting tl:e wheel hubs while the truck was in service and painting designs on the truck after it
had been taken out of service. Claimants admissions alone provide substantial evidence proving
the charge.
The Organization also contends that Carrier condoned Claimant's actions. However,
there was no evidence that any Carrier official actually observed Claimant painting the truck, or
was other.:ise aware of Claimants actions. The record simply does not support the
Organizat:.)n~s argument.
AWARD
Claim denied.
"'~/ _/~
Martin H. Malin. Chairman
T. E. Co
I
la
D. holomay
Carrier b :mbar Emplo, a Member
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, December 20, 2000.