Public Law Board No. 7048. upon the whole record and all the evidence. linds and holds that Employee and Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway I,ahor .Act as amended; and that the Board has .jurisdiction over the dispute: herein; and that the parties to the dispute have participated in accordance to the Agreement that established the Board.
On March 3, 2011. Claimant was directed to attend a li>rinal Investigation tan March 8. 2() 11. which was mutually postponed until April 4, 2011, concerning in pertinent part the following charge:
()n April 28, 2011, Claimant was notified that he had been ft)ilild guilty as charged and eras assessed a formal reprimand.
It is the Organization's position that derailment occurred because one ,et of` wheels got Miff the track as a result of soil roadbed and a broken gauge rod. According to it. the gauge rod held the track to the required specifications and when it broke the s<>ft road bed and weak ties and pressure by the rail cars forced the rail to spread apart causing a minor derailment through no fault of' the Claimant. It argued that the Claimant had taken over track inspection duties on November l f, 2010, and during the month of November arid December he performed inspections as required. The last inspection he made was on December ? 1, 2010 and beginning in January 201 1, the Carrier assigned another Track Inspector M. Guzman, to perform inspection while the Carrier assigned the Claimant to work with acid assist Section Forces working! in the area. It asserted he was acting as a Section Foreman, who went out with that group everyday to perform work during which time he was not allowed to perform his regular track inspection duties as those duties were left up to Mr. Guzman. Additionally, it argued that there had been heavy traffic over this area since Claimant's last inspection and at the time of the derailment there was a recent snowfall of five inches, all of which could have caused the gauge rod to break. It concluded by requesting that the discipline be rescinded and the claim sustained as presented.
It is the position of the Carrier that the Claimant was assigned as a Track Supervisor and it was his responsibility to perform a thorough inspection of the tracks he is responsible for and take the appropriate actions to either make the necessary repairs or take necessary step to ensure that trains arc safe. It argued that the record reflects that the track leading into 3703 track switch had wide gauge and broken wide gauge rods that caused the three car derailment with estimated damages of $1,700. and because the Claimant had riot made any track inspections since December ?010, he was responsible for the subsequent derailment. It closed by asking that the discipline not be disturbed and the claim remain denied.
The Board has thoroughly reviewed the transcript and record of evidence and determined that the Investigation and appeal process met the guidelines of Rule 13(a) the Discipline Rule arid Appendix No. 1 1.
There is no dispute between the parties that the last inspection made by the Claimant was on December 21, 2010. The Organization argued that was because the Claimant had been reassigned to be an acting Foreman with a Section Gang during which time employee Guzman was responsible for making the track inspections whereas the Carrier asserted that the Claimant was a Track Supervisor and it was still his responsibility to check the tracks. The question at issue was Claimant assigned as a Foreman after December 21, 2(11(), tip until the derailment that occurred on February 22, 201 1. with no responsibility to make track inspections during that period.
37.0 3 and 37.t>4 since his last inspection. Claimant further testified that his Crack Inspector position wa-s abolished and he displaced (ittztnan of)' of* his Track Inspector position that had only had responsibility for the area in dispute fir live days. That admission also substantiated that he should have made additional track inspections after December 21, 2010. Substantial evidence was adduced at the Investigation that the Claimant was guilty as charged.
The only issue remaining is whether the discipline was appropriate. At the time «t' the incident Claimant had approximately l fi years of service with a good work record. -I'he Board finds and holds the reprimand assessed against the Claimant will not be set aside as it was in accordance with the Carrier's Policy for I°mployee Performance Accountability (PITA) and it was not excessive. arbitrary «r capricious. The claim will remain denied.