PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6621
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
AND
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Case No. 21
Statement of Claim: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Union Pacific Railroad Company erred and violated the
contractual rights of Tractor-Bulldozer Operator P.C. Begay
when it unjustly assessed his record with a Level 5 discipline
and dismissed him from service on 10/03/02, as a consequence
of investigation held on 09/05/002 for being careless of the
safety of fellow employee and engaging in an act of hostility.
(2) Therefore, the Union Pacific Railroad Company:
(a) reinstate him to service with seniority rights unimpaired;
(b) all other contractual rights be restored;
(c) compensate him for net wage loss; and
(d) all charges be expunged from his record.
Background
This dismissal case stems from an incident that occurred on July 17, 2002, in which
Claimant P.C. Begay allegedly engaged in hostile and menacing behavior toward three
fellow employees by deliberately running his backhoe to within two to three feet of
where they were standing. Specifically, the charge was that after Claimant came to a
skidding stop, he got out of the backhoe and said to employees Estrada and Moran,
"Don't worry guys and watch out. I was aiming at him," while pointing at co-worker Ray
Williams.
?L8 1#62.1
~1wd
a.~
2
A Notice of Investigation was issued on July 24, 2002, and following a hearing held on
September 5, 2002, the Carrier found that Claimant (1) bad been careless of the safety of
others and (2) had engaged in an act of hostility, misconduct and willful disregard of
fellow employees. Claimant was dismissed from employment by letter dated October 3,
2002. The Organization filed an appeal, and failing to resolve the matter with the Carrier,
filed the instant claim with this Board.
Findines
A review of the testimony and evidence produced at the investigation compels the
conclusion that Claimant was, in fact, guilty of engaging in threatening and hostile
behavior toward fellow workers. Importantly, all three employees involved -Estrada,
Moran, and Williams - gave written statements about the incident and also testified at the
hearing. Claimant refiised to provide a written statement. Moreover, the statements and
testimony offered by Estrada, Moran, and William was clear, consistent, and very
credible.
Essentially, the three men told the same story. Moran and Estrada were stationary
when Claimant approached them in his backhoe. He was moving fast and had to slam on
the brakes to avoid hitting them. After stopping just two to three feet from them,
Claimant got out of the backhoe and angrily pointed to William, saying words to the
effect: "Guys, watch out, I'm aiming for him!"
Estrada and Moran clearly were frightened, and Williams, understandably, felt that
Claimant was out to hurt him Nothing in Claimant's demeanor and behavior suggested
that he was just joking. To the contrary, he was serious, hostile and menacing. Estrada,
PL B
(01P
a.
Awd
ai
3
Moran, and Williams all felt threatened with bodily harm Estrada even testified that as
he heard the backhoe skid, he "freaked out" (Tr. 94). As a result of the incident, he
decided he was not going to work around Claimant anymore. (Tr. 27-30, 83).
The investigation also revealed that Ray Williams had felt threatened by Claimant
even prior to the backhoe incident. According to Williams, Claimant had "went off
several times on me." Williams had even spoken to Manager Battista about Claimant in
the past. Supervisor Teller, the new Manager of Track Maintenance, after hearing about
the backhoe incident, attempted to resolve the issues between Claimant and Williams
without a formal investigation Teller testified, however, that Claimant became irritated
and uncooperative. Faced with Claimant's continuing hostility toward Williams and his
unwillingness to change his attitude, the Carrier initiated the formal investigation
The credible evidence in the Record leaves no doubt that Claimant acted in a careless
and hostile manner in violation of the Carrier's safety rules. The arbitral case law is well
established: no employer may be compelled to retain an employee who threatens fellow
workers with violence and/or who engages in life-threatening conduct. Claimant's
careless, intimidating and unprovoked behavior toward his fellow workers, and Williams
in particular, left the Carrier with little'choice but to dismiss him from service.
Award
The claim is denied.
Joan Parker, Neutral Member
Or ' tion Membs Carrier Member
Dated:
/4t - fI - c~
7A Dated: