requested that the charge letter and all matters relative thereto be removed from Mr. Vaughn's personal file, and he be made whole for all losses suffered as a result of the Carrier's actions, and be returned to the employment of CSX Transportation, Inc.
Machine Operator K. L. Vaughn (hereinafter referred to as "Claimant" or Mr. Vaughn") was hired by Carrier on August 4, 2003. Prior to his dismissal, the Claimant was working as a machine operator at Boyles Yard in Birmingham, AL, under the supervision of Roadmaster C. Beilharz.
On February 2, 2007, Roadmaster Beilharz was conducting a job briefing for his employees, including Claimant Vaughn. The record demonstrates that at some point during the briefing the Claimant began "angry and agitated" while describing an incident which occurred the previous day.
PLB NO. 7008 AWARD NO. 34COMPANY CASE NO. 12(07-0599) Despite Roadmaster Beilharz repeated directive to "calm down", the Claimant continued his tirade, eventually "pacing around the room, yelling profanities and waving his arms". When it became evident that the Claimant did not intend to "calm down", his supervisor instructed him to "leave the property", however, the Claimant again ignored his supervisor's directive and instead sat down with his co-workers. After being told, for a second time, that he "needed to leave" and that per his repeated demand that he be "paid for the day", the Claimant eventually left the property.
As a result of the incident, in a letter dated February 14, 2007 the Claimant was instructed to attend a March 1, 2007 investigation and charged with "conduct unbecoming an employee of the Carrier, in violation of CSX Operating Rules A, GR-2 and CSX Safeway Rules GS-1 and CSX Policy on Workplace Violence". After three (3) postponements at the request of both parties, the hearing was held on March 13, 2007 with Mr. Vaughn and his representative present throughout the proceedings. On April 2, 2007, the Claimant was informed that he had been found guilty as charged, and dismissed from Carrier's service.
In a April 9, 2007 letter, BMWE Vice Chairman A. H. Shelton appealed the discipline to former Director Labor Relations J. H. Wilson. Initially, Mr. Shelton rejected the administrative handling of the investigation arguing that:
Director Labor Relations J. C. Amidon confirmed the parties' August 2, 2007 conference of the dispute and issued the Carrier's written appellate declination of the claim in an August 15, 2007 letter. At the outset, Director Amidon averred that Claimant was provided a fair and impartial investigation in accordance with Rule 25 (Discipline) of the 1999 BMWEICSXT System Agreement. With regard to the Organization's "administrative" assertions, Mr. Amidon contended that: "The Claimant was provided proper notice, in writing, of the charge. The Investigation was
originally scheduled for March 1, 2007, however, in a letter dated February 25, 2007, it was postponed until March 6, 2007... ".
Regarding the merits of the dispute, Director Amidon maintained that the Claimant wasIn an October 1, 2007 letter, Vice Chairman Shelton rejected Carrier's appellate declination of the claim, reiterating that Carrier "wrongly failed" to attend the initial hearing on March 1, 2007. Additionally, Mr. Shelton argued that the Carrier failed to show that Roadmaster Beilharz was indeed "intimidated" by the Claimant, and that perhaps he had merely "misunderstood" Mr.
Further correspondence between the Parties failed to resolve this dispute. Therefore, the issue has been placed before the Board for adjudication.
The Organization asserted throughout the consideration of the dispute on the property that the Carrier violated Rule 25(d) of the Agreement when it did not provide proper notice of the postponement of the hearing from March 1, 2007 to March 6, 2007. For its part, the Carrier argues that there is "nothing in this rule that species how or to whom the request for postponement is to be made .... ". In that regard, we concur with the findings of Public Law Board 4861, Award No. 14, in which the Neutral stated: "Initially, the Organization objected to the manner in which the Carrier 4
PLB NO. 7008 AWARD NO. 34
In the circumstances, the record evidence, including the testimony of witnesses who observed the February 2, 2007 interchange between the Claimant and his supervisor, Roadmaster Beilharz, clearly supports Carrier's findings) of guilt.
At the outset, the Organization maintained that Roadmaster Beilharz may have "misunderstood" or "misconstrued" the Claimant's behavior on February 2, 2007 as "threatening". However, the record demonstrates that this is not the first time the Claimant behaved in a threatening manner toward the Roadmaster. According to Mr. Beilharz' uncontested testimony, the Claimant's behavior on February 2, was "similar to other times he has disrupted meetings with boisterous, profane, and threatening behavior". In that connection, it is not disputed that, on at least one (1) prior occasion, the Claimant did indeed physically threaten the Roadmaster.
Although the Organization argued that Assistant Roadmaster Singleton's testimony in that regard was "obviously biased due to his management position", and that Track Inspector Williams testimony "does not support Carrier's position", we do not concur. When asked to describe the Claimant's demeanor during the Roadmaster's February 2 job briefing, Mr. Singleton testified that the Claimant was "trying to intimidate the Roadmaster" and "showing disrespect" in an attempt to "undermine Mr. Beilharz authority". Mr. Singleton went on to report that the Claimant was "boisterous and profane", as well as "insubordinate", in that he did not comply with the
Roadmaster's directive to "leave the room". While Track Inspector Williams was not as forthcoming as Mr. Singleton, he did state that on the date at issue, the Claimant was "using cuss words" while speaking "in his own way". When asked what he meant by "speaking in his own way", the Track Inspector admitted that "some people would say it (his tone) was offensive".
Further, when asked if it is "common" during job briefings for an employee to "use profanity and direct it at the supervisor", Mr. Williams replied: "No, it is not common".
For his part, although the Claimant denied having a "problem with anger" he did admit that he was "seeing a psychiatrist for it and I'm on medication for it". When asked, "Do you always know when your anger is getting out of hand"? The Claimant replied: "Yeah, because when I'm getting out of hand, I'm telling myself to shut up and go home".
In defense of his behavior on August 4, the Claimant asserted that other employees "got mad" at the Roadmaster, "throwed coffee at him and threatened to kill him", but were not taken out of service as he had been. According to the Claimant, he was being "singled out" and the Roadmaster had been "looking for anything to get my job for the last six (6) months". However, there is no evidence in the record which supports the Claimant's assertion that other employees "throwed coffee" or "threatened to kill" the Roadmaster, nor do we find evidence that supports the Claimant's contention that he was being "singled out". In the circumstances, the Claimant's arguments/explanations regarding his behavior on February 2, 2007 are clearly self serving and simply not credible.
Finally, with regard to the quantum of discipline assessed, the Claimant's personal record indicates that he was granted a waiver, which included a thirty (30) day actual suspension, in connection with an incident which occurred on July 20, 2006 when he reportedly "threatened his
