BEFORE PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 6915
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
CN/WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILROAD
Case No. 4
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Appeal of the thirty-day suspension issued to Claimant C. Quante for alleged failure
to perform warm-up and/or stretching exercises after a period of inactivity before
performing physical activity, in violation of Carrier rules, policies, and/or instructions,
and resulting in a personal injury to Claimant.
FINDINGS:
By letter dated September 15, 2005, the Claimant was notified to appear at a
formal hearing and investigation to determine whether the Claimant violated any Carrier
rules, policies, and/or instructions when he allegedly injured himself while installing
pandrol clips with a sledgehammer near Allanson Road Crossing, MP 38.8, Waukesha
Subdivision in Mundelein, Illinois, on August 31, 2005. The investigation was
conducted, as scheduled, on October 4, 2005. By letter dated October 18, 2005, the
Claimant was notified that as a result of the investigation, he had been found guilty of
violating Carrier Operating Rules, General Rules, and Safety Rules by not performing
stretching exercises prior to starting heavy work, and that he was being issued a thirty-day
disciplinary suspension. The Organization filed a claim on the Claimant's behalf,
challenging the Carrier's decision to suspend the Claimant. The Carrier denied the claim.
The Carrier initially contends that the record contains credible testimony and
evidence proving that the Claimant violated Carrier Operating Rules, General Rules, and
1
TL$
10915
Award
Safety Rules relating to stretching exercises when he failed to perform such exercises
following a period of inactivity and before performing heavy physical work. The Carrier
maintains that in light of the seriousness of the incident, the Claimant's proven rule
violations, and the Claimant's past discipline record, the thirty-day suspension at issue
was appropriate.
The Carrier ultimately contends that the instant claim should be denied in its
entirety.
The Organization initially contends that the Carrier failed to provide the Claimant
with a fair and impartial investigation. The Organization argues that it was inappropriate
for the hearing officer to have required the Claimant to testify before any evidence had
been presented against him. The Organization insists that this demonstrated that the
hearing officer realized that the Carrier had no evidence to support its charges and hoped
that the Claimant would incriminate himself. The Organization maintains that such a
tactic is contrary to due process. The Organization argues that because the Claimant did
not receive a fair and impartial investigation, the instant claim should be sustained on that
basis alone.
The Organization then asserts that a review of the transcript demonstrates that the
Carrier failed to meet its burden of proving that the Claimant violated any of the multiple
rules cited in the charges. The Organization emphasizes that the only Carrier witness
simply read into the record numerous rules that the Claimant allegedly violated.
The Organization ultimately contends that the instant claim should be sustained in
2
7L B (091 S
A
w4
rd y
its entirety.
The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this
Board.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case and we find that
the Carrier has failed to meet its burden of proof that the Claimant violated various
operating rules, policies, and/or instructions on September 17, 2005, by failing to perform
his stretching exercises. It is fundamental that the Carrier bears the burden of proof in
cases of this kind. As this Board has stated on numerous occasions in the past, simply
because an accident occurs does not necessarily mean that the Claimant violated Carrier
rules prior to the incident. A thorough review of this transcript makes it clear that the
Carrier has failed to prove that the Claimant violated any Carrier rules leading to his
injury.
Since the Carrier has failed to meet its burden of proof, the claim must be
sustained. The thirty-day suspension of the Claimant must be removed from his record
and the Claimant must be made whole.
AWARD:
The claim is sustained. The thirty-day suspension of the Claimant shall be
3
PCB
(oils
removed from his record and 1 be whole.
rEI'§ft I;L M~E)tRS
Neutral ber
ORbXIIZATION MECARRIItR MEIVIBER
DATED`:: '79 ' ~. - O
L~
DATED:
4