Public Law Board No. 7049, upon the whole record and all the evidence. finds and holds that Fmployee and Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended: and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and that the parties tee the dispute have participated in accordance to the Agreement that established the Board.
On April 25, 201 1, Claimant was directed to attend a formal Investigation on April 29, 2011, which was mutually postponed until May 1 1 * 20 1 1, concerning in pertinent part the following charge:
()n .tune 1t>, 2011, Claimant was notified that lie had been found L;uiltv as charged and ,vas assessed a Level S 30-Day Record Suspension with a three year probationary period.
It is the Organ ization's position that the Carrier did not meet its burden of proof: It argued that the Claimant was charged with having been involved in stn accident with a person who was driving illegally with an expired driver's license. It farther argued that there was a citation issued at the accident site, but those charges were dropped and the Claimant was not found guilty of anything and on that basis it reasoned he was not guilty. !t concluded the Claimant did nothing wrong and it requested that the discipline he rescinded and the claim sustained as presented.
It is the position of the Carrier that the Organization's argument in this case is that charges were: dropped and the Claimant was never found guilty of the citation lie received from the Police Officer that handled the accident thus he wa=s innocent. However. that did not eliminate the fact that the Claimant allowed the vehicle he was driving to roll hack into a car that was sitting behind him in violation of Mt.)WSR S-012.1 .I on April 1 9, `?f)1 1. It closed by ;asking that the discipline not he disturbed and the claim sustained as presented.
the Board has thoroughly reviewed the transcript and record of evidence and has determined that the Investigation and appeal process met the guidelines of Rule 40 the Discipline Rule of the former PIN ,Agreement and Claimant was afforded his "due process" Agreement rights.
On page 7 of the, transcript the Gang Roadmaster, R. Baker was questioned about the incident as follows:
Claimant testified that his truck rolled hack, but he did not hit anything, lie further testified that the Impala that he allegedly hit had a buckled hood. Contrary to the C`laimant's rendition of'the accident the Police Officer described the accident as fellows:
The Police Officer's description of the incident was based upon his conversations with the Claimant and the other person involved as well as his review of the accident site. Fhe Police Officer's narrative of the: accident is also consistent with the testimony of' Gang Roadmaster I~. Brazier. It is further noted that the citation of the Claimant states the following:
The Organization argued that Claimant was never tbund guilty, but there was no evidence presented that was correct nor does that change the fact that he told his Supervisor he backed into another vehicle. Substantial evidence was adduced at the Investigation that the Claimant was guilty as charged as he failed to operate his vehicle in a sate manner.
The, only issue remaining is whether the discipline was appropriate. The discipline assessed was far a serious violation and his personal record reveals that he was not discipline free during the preceding five years. The discipline assessed against the Claimant will not be set aside as it was in accordance with the Carrier's Policy ti)r Employee Performance Accountability (PEPA) and it was not excessive, arbitrary car capricious. The claim will remain denied.