Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division - IBT Rail Conference
-and-
Delaware and Hudson Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway
Award 55
Case No. 55
Carrier's File 8-01004 DHR
The discipline [five (5) day actual suspension] assessed Mr. B. Robarge by letter dated September 26, 2014 for alleged violation of Engineering Safety Rules and Engineering Core Safety Rule 1 failing lo advise and redirect to safe work practices anyone observed performing an unsafe act in connection with a motor vehicle incident on September 9, 2014 was arbitrary, capricious,withoutjust and sufficient cause and in violation of the Agreement.
As a consequence ofthe violation referredto in Part 1 above, we request that Claimant R Robarge have his record cleared of his discipline, that he be compensated all losses suffered due to the Carrier's improper discipline and that he be afforded all other relief contained in the Organization's letter of claim dated November 11, 2014.
ThisiPublic Law Board 7357 finds that the parties are Ca1'rier and Employee, within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.
By letter dated Septembe1ยท 26, 2014 the Claimant, Mr. Brnderick Robal'ge, was notified
by the Carder that he was assessed the discipHne of a s day suspension, to be served as follows: Dear Sir:
As a result of the facts developed at the formal investigation hearing, held Tuesday, September 16, 2014 you have been found failing to comply with Engineering Safety Rules,in violation of Engineering Core Safely Rule l - failing to advise and redirect to safe work practices anyone observed performing anunsafe act. This is a. result of your
PLB No. 7357
Award No. 55
involvement in a motor vehicle accident on the Canadian Subdivision on September 9, 2014.
Your record been accessed with a 5-day suspension, be served. This suspension will begin on September 29th to October 3rd, 2014 with an expected return to work the date of October 6111, 2014,
s/Todd Dragland - Division Engineer- NortheastUS Division
TheOrganization appealed the discipline, and the matter has been progressedto this Board for adjudication.
No basis exists in the record before this Board to set aside the discipline on procedural grounds.
Substantial evidence of record supports the Canier's determination that Mr. Robarge was in violation of Engineering Safety Rules and Engineer Safety Rule 1 "- for failing to advise and redirect to safe work practices anyone observed performing an unsafeact in connection With a motor vehicle incident. Mr. Robl:lrge got backinto the BTMF truck after he and Mr. Brown finished posting signs forthe job to be perfmmedonthe next day, and without the performance of a job briefing or a risk assessment walk around the ti'uck by the driver, Mr. Wade, or a designation of an individual to get out of the fruck to serve as a spotter, the driver initiated a reverse move forsome 200 to 300 feet before he stopped the vehicle realizing that the truck hit and damaged an AEI reader, with no damage to the truck. Mr. Robarge and the other crew members failed to challenge the driver and stop him from proceeding in the performance of this unsafe back up movement in violation of the Carrier's rules.
We find that the discipline of a 5 working day suspension was appmpriate under the Company's Discipline Policy 5612. We must deny this claim.
PLB No. 7357
Award No. 55
- - ..
Carder Member
