PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6621
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
And
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Case No. 28
Statement of Claim: It is the claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
I. The discipline (withheld from service and subsequent dismissal) imposed
upon Mr. M. T. Shannon for alleged violation of `*** the Union Pacific
Company Policy of Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action and
related Directives' while assigned as a crane operator on July 8, 2000 was
excessive, unduly harsh and in violation of the Agreement.
2. As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant
M. T. Shannon shall now `...be reinstated to the service of the Carrier on
his former position with seniority and all other rights restored unimpaired,
compensated for all wage and benefit loss suffered by him, and the alleged
charge(s) be expunged from his personal record.'
Baclmround
Claimant M. T. Shannon entered the service of the Union Pacific Railroad Company
(formerly Southern Pacific Transportation Company- Western Lines) on December 15,
1999. Thereafter, he established seniority rights in various classes within the Track Sub-
department, Oregon Division, Western Seniority District. Claimant was dismissed for
making discriminatory and racially demeaning remarks to a co-worker on July 8, 2000.
On that day, Claimant was working as a crane operator in Dunsmuir, California.
The events that triggered Claimant's discharge were as follows. At around noon on
July 8, Manager Track Maintenance Gary Mahon was told that Claimant had been
making unwelcome and profane remarks to co-worker Bob Murillo. MTM Mahon spoke
T)/_ 8
uIva i
to Claimant and counseled him about cursing at fellow employees. He reminded
Claimant about his involvement in a prior heated exchange with another worker and
directed him to treat others on the job with respect. Claimant said he understood and
would comply. Later that afternoon, however, Mahon was informed that Claimant was
involved in another hostile incident with Bob Murillo, in which he had cursed at Murillo
and made racially derogatory remarks.
By letter dated July 14, 2000, Claimant was noticed for an investigation, and a
hearing was held on July 27, 2000. Thereafter, it was determined that Claimant made
discriminatory statements to a co-worker in violation of Carrier Rule 1.6 and Union
Pacific's Policy of Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action and Related
Directives, which states, in relevant part:
Harassment
The Company is committed to providing a work environment
free from offensive behavior directed at a person's race, color,
national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, veteran
status or disability ("protected status"). This includes offensive
behavior directed at other employees, contractors, customers, and
visitors to Company facilities, as well as others that employees may
come in contact with during the normal course of work or while
representing the Company. Harassment could include but is not
limited to the following:
4. Use of any epithet, remark or gesture to or about another person's
protected status, including that which is intended as humor.
Claimant was assessed a Level 5 permanent dismissal. The Organization appealed the
dismissal through the grievance procedure, but the parties were unable to reach a
resolution. Therefore, the matter was submitted to this Board for review and decision.
T
L
8 (o (o Z 1
3
ALod
018
Opinion
The Organization concedes that Claimant made inappropriate remarks. It contends,
however, that Claimant was provoked by Bob Murillo who falsely accused him of
mishandling his tools. The Organization also argues that Claimant's language was not
directed to Murillo, but rather, was "an angry outburst that was general in nature."
(Carrier Ex. A-5).
The Record evidence does not, however, support the Organization's position. Both
the written statements and oral testimony offered by several members of Claimant's gang
who observed the July 8 incident conclusively prove that Claimant repeatedly made racial
slurs, which he directed at Bob Murillo personally.
Mechanic G. Casey heard Claimant tell Murillo that he was a "f-----g nigger" and
that he needed to go back to Redding "where all the other niggers live." (Carrier Ex. C,
p. 24). Curve Lube Maintainer P. Jimenez heard Claimant say that Bob Murillo was "a
Mexican nigger and that all the guys from Redding were a bunch of niggers and cry
babies." (Carrier Ex. C, p. 28). Corroborating testimony was also offered by Surfacing
Gang Manager J. Allen, who reported that Claimant ranted that Murillo was a "fucking
nigger" and that all the employees from Redding were "fucking niggers who needed to go
back to Redding" and to "niggerville." (Carrier Ex. C, p. 38). According to Allen,
Claimant used a variety of curse words toward Murillo. Moreover, this incident was not
an isolated event. Allen testified that he had witnessed Claimant's anger in the past, as
well as his throwing of tools.
Ahnost every witness confirmed that Claimant made offensive remarks both to and
?c. B
(D (R
a i
awd
a $
and about Bob Murillo. Significantly, Claimant even admitted that he called Murillo a
"dog fucking nigger" and told him that it was "dog fucking nigger shit" that Murillo had
complained to Mahon about Claimant's allegedly assembling his tools incorrectly.
(Carrier Ex. C, p. 60).
That fact that Claimant felt he was falsely accused of mishandling his tools did not
excuse his hostile and offensive statements. He was expressly counseled that very day by
Mahon about treating co-workers respectfully, and he promised to correct his behavior.
Yet, as soon as Mahon left the site, Claimant unleashed a disgusting, racially charged
diatribe that offended not only Murillo, but other employees as well.
Even in the absence of Mahon's counseling, Claimant should have known that racial
slurs are not tolerated in the workplace. The Carrier has a legal obligation to provide a
work environment that is free of harassment, discrimination, and intimidation. It has
promulgated and posted an Equal Employment Opportunity policy, which it enforces
through annual mailings of EEO compliance materials, staff and safety meetings, EEOrelated classes, and the upgrade discipline policy. It is well-recognized that racially
demeaning remarks are not condoned in the workplace and employees who make such
remarks subject themselves to discharge. (See, Special Board ofAdjusdment Award No.
176 (Euker); Public Law Board No. 5301, Award No. 16 (Peterson); NRAB, Third
Division, Award No. 31441 (Malin)).
While the Organization suggested that Claimant's behavior was arguably attributable
to his having suffered brain damage in a car accident, there was no documented evidence
to this effect introduced into the Record. Thus, the Organization's argument on this point
OFL
8 to 14p
a i
14w4
was highly speculative. The simple fact is that Claimant behaved in a mean and bigoted
manner, and the Carrier was well within its rights in terminating his employment.
Award
The claim is denied.
oan Parker, Neutral ember
Carrier Member ga ation Member
Dated: i Dated: ~- (a - d