NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
PUBLIC LAW BOARD 6986
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
(Former St. Louis - San Francisco Railway Co.)
(Carrier)
and
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES DIVISION
(Organization
PLB
No. 6986 Case No. 13
Carrier File No. 12-07-0049
Organization File No. B-3041-2
Claimant: Virgil L. Bonham
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. The Carrier violated the Agreement on February 23, 2007, when
Claimant Virgil L. Bonham was assessed a Level-S 30-day Record
Suspension for violating Maintenance of Way (MOW) Operating
Rule 1.1.1 - Maintaining a Safe Course when he decided to turn
his machine without assistance.
2. As a consequence of the Carrier's violation referred to in part (1)
above, all references to this incident shall be removed from
Claimant's personal record.
This claim was discussed in conference between the parties.
PLB No. 6986 2
Award No. 13
NATURE OF THE CASE
The Claimant, who is employed by the Carrier as a Machine
Operator, caused substantial damage to a large piece of equipment, a
Model C Spiker, on February 23, 2007 by attempting to turn it around
on a section of track without assistance by a co-worker. This Model C
Spiker is pictured in photographs as being more than six feet high, more
than six feet wide and at least fifteen feet long and its estimated weight
exceeds twenty thousand pounds. The equipment teetered and fell on its
side, causing substantial damage and requiring replacement of the
turntable underneath the equipment. The Carrier imposed a Level-S
thirty-day record suspension, plus a three-year review period, on the
Claimant for violation of Maintenance of Way Rule 1.1.1-Maintaining
Safe Course because, according to the Carrier, the Claimant negligently
undertook this procedure without enlisting the aid of co-workers as
required by Rule S-1.2.7, which prohibits performing "a task alone that
can only be performed safely by two or more people".
The Organization grieved the imposition of discipline as being
without just cause, as the Claimant had successfully completed this
maneuver numerous times in the past without incident. Consequently,
in the absence of any explicit work rule mandating a minimum staffing of
more than one employee to perform this particular maneuver, the
PLB No. 6986 3
Award No. 13
imposition of a thirty-day suspension was excessive. According to the
Organization, the Model C Spiker was not damaged because of any
negligence by the Claimant or because too few employees were involved
in the maneuver of turning the equipment, but because rotted railroad
ties underneath the section of track where the maneuver was executed
crumbled, causing the track to give way and the machine to tip.
The Organization further asserted that the suspension of the
Claimant was procedurally defective because the Carrier's representative
on the property fulfilled multiple roles both in the imposition of discipline
and the review of the discipline imposed on the Claimant, and because
the Carrier violated Rule 90 because the Carrier failed to reply to the
Organization's appeal within the requisite sixty day limit.
The parties were unable to resolve their dispute within the
grievance procedure, and the matter was submitted for adjudication by
Public Law
Board No. 6986.
PLB No. 6986
Award No. 13
FINDINGS AND OPINION
Photographs in evidence demonstrate several aspects of the
incident underlying the imposition of discipline in the instant case.
First, the Model C Spiker machine is a very large, heavy piece of
equipment. It appears in photographs to be at least six feet wide, six feet
tall, and fifteen feet long, certainly larger than a pickup truck. According
to the testimony, the Spiker sits on a turntable, which enables the
machine to change directions as necessary. Attempting to turn this
equipment by only one employee seems a risky undertaking, given the
size of the unit, notwithstanding that the Claimant or other employees
may have routinely performed this maneuver single-handedly in the past.
The Carrier is entitled to promulgate a work rule mandating that
this particular maneuver be performed by no fewer than two employees,
or more employees, if the Carrier so determines. However, no such
explicit determination has previously been made and communicated to
the Claimant or his colleagues, other than the general exhortation to use
common sense and prudence in performing assigned tasks that is
articulated in Rule 1.1.1 and Rule S-1.2.7.
The Organization's contention that the damage caused when the
machine tipped over on February 23, 2007 was primarily caused by
defective railroad ties giving way has not been persuasively demonstrated
PLB No. 69$6 5
Award No. 13
by the documentary evidence or by testimony at the investigatory
hearing. Photographs in evidence depict railroad ties that appear brittle,
with small parts of the ties having broken away. However, these
photographs do not establish that these were the ties under the section
of rail on which the machine was situated or that the ties failed, broke,
or crumbled in a way that caused the rail to buckle or the machine to fall
between the rails.
The Carrier reasonably concluded that the more probable cause of
the accident was the unbalance of the machinery resulting from its being
turned by only one employee at one end. Furthermore, the standard
operating procedures for effectuating such maneuvers require that the
machine be moved to a section of rail that is adequately supported.
If the ties were as dilapidated as the Claimant contends, he should not
have attempted to turn the machinery on a section of rail resting on such
ties. Consequently, the Carrier has demonstrated by substantial
evidence that the Claimant is culpable for having undertaken this
maneuver single-handedly in the particular location where the accident
occurred, resulting in substantial damage to Carrier equipment,
estimated at $85'7.06 to repair.
PLB No. 69$6
Award No. 13
6
The Organization has been unable to demonstrate persuasively
that any physical defect in the railroad ties was a proximate cause of the
derailment of the Model C Spiker machine. Moreover, it was incumbent
upon the Claimant to be sure that he was performing this maneuver on a
firm section of track. In view of these findings, there is no basis in the
evidentiary record to overturn the Carrier's initial determination
regarding the Claimant's culpability.
However, as the Claimant did not violate a clearly articulated
Carrier standard operating procedure for turning this machine nor did
he deviate from the instructions of his supervisor or ignore any
demonstrated prevalent practice regarding the number of employees
used to turn this Model C Spiker machine and similar machines, the
imposition of a thirty-day suspension is deemed unduly harsh, as even
an unrelated subsequent offense could materially adversely effect the
Claimant's continued employment. Consequently, the Carrier has not
satisfied its burden of persuasion to establish that just cause exists to
impose a Level S-thirty-day record suspension on the Claimant Virgil L.
Bonham.
PLB No. 6986
Award No. 13
7
The
suspension shall be reduced to a written warning, and the
Claimant shall be made whole for any adverse consequences attributable
to the thirty day suspension imposed. The three year review period is
reduced to a twelve month period beginning on the date of the incident.
The Organization's contention that
the Carrier's Hearing Officer
denied the Claimant a fair investigatory hearing has not been
persuasively established. Neither is the Carrier's delay in responding to
the appeal in the instant case cited by the Organization sufficient to
invalidate the Board's consideration of the instant claim on the
merits.
We so find.
.
a_ - -- Dated:
October 24, 2008
Daniel F. Brent, Impartial Chair
( I concur. ( ) I dissent.
i
Dated:
/f ~~,:,~')t.-~,..~r
~o~,~c2~
Carrier Member
I concur. ( ) I dissent.
Sr
Dated:%1 JU $'
.jc
aenA~%-- --
4
ganization Member