PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7529
Case No. 143
PAR1 ES
TO Tl E DISPUTE
vs.
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters System File: D603l 16
CSX Transportation, Inc. Carrier File: 2016-214225
Referee: Sherwood Malamud
The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrie and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board s duly constituted by agreement of the parties; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispu1 , and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.
By letter dated November 29, 2016, Claimant, Vehicle Operator G. Harris requested that this di ::iplinary matter be processed by Public Law Board 7529 (Special Board of Adjustment) for ex dited handling.
The Carrier hired Claimant Gary Harris on August 15, 2011. By letter dated August 17, 2016, lSsistant Roadmaster K.L. Hill notified Claimant to report to an investigatory hearing that wash don November 2, 2016 to determine the facts and Claimant' s responsibility for events that 01 :urred on August 12, 2016, ". . . when you failed to follow instructions not to unload the backh e off the trailer without the dump truck attached." Hill accused Claimant of violating Opera ng Rules 100.1 and 104.3, which provide:
100.1 Employees must know and comply with rules, instructions, and procedures that govern their duties. They must also comply with the instructions of supervisors. When there is uncertainty, employees must:
2. Contact a supervisor for clarification.
And
The following behaviors are prohibited while on duty, on CSX property, or when occupying facilities provided by CSX:
Carelessness, incompetence, or willful neglect of duties; or
Behavior that endangers life or property.
On August 12, Assistant Roadmaster Hill asked Claimant to drop a backhoe in Irvington, Kenn ky so it would be available on Monday morning for a job in that area. Previously, on Augu 5, 2016, Hill had instructed Claimant to have a dump truck hooked to a trailer, when drivir a backhoe off of the trailer. Previously, a dump truck was not necessarily employed to attacr o a trailer, when removing the backhoe from the trailer. On August 5, Claimant moved a bacl<l e off of a trailer as Assistant Roadrnaster Hill had instructed.
On August 12, Claimant left the trailer with the backhoe on the trailer in Irvington,
Kentt ky. He did not drive the backhoe off of the trailer on Friday, August 12. He did not leave the 01 dump truck assigned to this area with the trailer and the backhoe. Instead, he drove the dump ruck to Owensboro, Kentucky, where Claimant clocked out. By letter dated November 21, 2( 6 Division Engineer Crossman assessed Claimant with a three day suspension.
Boar Findings
Claimant received a fair hearing.
The charge lodged by Hill against Claimant may be read in a number of ways. One
interp itation, Claimant is charged with removing the backhoe without the dump truck anchoring the tn \er. The record clearly establishes that Claimant left the trailer with the backhoe on it in Irvin m, Kentucky. Claimant removed the backhoe, as directed by Hill, with the dump truck tether l to the trailer on Monday morning. Claimant did not violate this supervisory instruction.
Another interpretation of the charge, relates to Claimant's failure to follow Hill' s instru ions. After considerable review of the record, the Board understands that Hill wanted
Clairr nt to transport the backhoe on the trailer to Irvington, remove the backhoe from the trailer empk ing the method of tethering the dump truck to the trailer when removing the backhoe, leave te backhoe in Irvington and drive the dump truck back to Owensboro. Claimant failed to remm the backhoe from the trailer.
Hill notified employees under his supervision to the possibility of a callout over Satun .y, August 13 and/or Sunday, August 14 due to possible flooding. In order to leave the backh e ready for transport to a washout, Claimant left the backhoe on the trailer.
The Board concludes that the evidence does not support an inference that Claimant engag i in any deliberate act of insubordination. Instead, it supports a finding that Claimant attem ed to respond to both directives of Assistant Roadmaster Hill: to transport the backhoe to Irving m Kentucky, and to leave it on the trailer ready for transport to and for use in any
washc ts that may develop on that weekend. The evidence does not support a finding that Claim nt violated Rule 100.1. He responded to both supervisory directives.
Claimant did not violate Rule 104.3. He was not careless, nor did he willfully neglect his
duties His actions did not endanger anyone.
AWARD
Claim sustained in its entirety.
Sheru od Malamud Neutr Member
Date: ,7.. 7 / 20{