PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7544
Rall Conference )
)
)
)
)
500 Line Railroad Company (CP) )
Background
On July 8, 2015, the Carrier Issued to Claimant J. Westby a notice of formal Investigation and hearing scheduled for July 20, 2015. T e notice stated, In part, the followlns:
"The purpose ofthe investigation and hearinglstodevelop all facts and circumstances and place responsibility,If any, for your alleged involvement in an Incident involving a derailment onthe cleanout track in St. Paul on Monday, July 6, 2015. This Indicates a possible violation of, but Is not limited to, the following rules:
On July 20, 2015, the formal Investigation and hearing convened wherein Claimant, assisted by his representative, offered testimony and submitted one (1) exhibit as well as examined the Carrier's six (6) exhibits and cross-examined CP's witness.
On August 3, 2015, the Director Track. St. Paul Territory notified Claimant that, based on the investigative hearing, there was substantial evidence that Claimant violated the rules as charsed. "Therefore, ln consideration of the Investigation findings, the severity of the incident, and your past discipline record, you are hereby dismissed from Canadian Pacific, (CP), effective Immediately."
On September 24, 2015, the Carrier granted the Organization's request for a 30-day time llmit extension for further progression of this dispute.
On October 20, 2015, the Organization and the carrier agreed to progress Claimant's discipline dispute for resolution before this Board "utlllzing the abbreviated procedure provided for in Paragraph (K) of said PLB Agreement."
On November 11, 2015, the Regional Chief Engineer- U.S. South reinstated Claimant "[s)olely as a matter of managerlal leniency" and subject to conditions In a Reinstatement Agreement.
PLBNo. 7544
Case No.27 Award No. 27
finding§
f>ublic law Board No. 7544, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that the Board has Jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and that the parties to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing and did participate therein.
Consistent with the PLB Agreement for this Board, the evidentlary record In this proceeding Is comprised of the following: (A) notice of investigation, (B) transcript of investigation and all related exhibits, (C) discipline assessment letter and (D) on-property correspondence related to progression of the claim.
0 n-property correspondence shows that on November 11, 2015, the Carrier exercised leniency and reinstated Claimant pursuant to a Reinstatement Agreement. Paragraph 3 in the Reinstatement Agreement states that Claimant is not eligible "for any back pay or other benefits or compensation as a result of [his] dismissal, unless awarded through the grievance process in accordance with the Schedule of Rules Agreement."
The record shows that the Claimant was charged with violations of GCOR 1.1 and 1.4 as well as Red Book of Track Requirements Sections 9.2 and 14. Having reviewed the record, the Board finds there was substantial evidence supporting the rules violations. In this regard, there were insufficient spikes or fasteners as shown by one tie with no plate, another tie and plate without spikes and another plate with raised spikes. Claimant, a track inspector, did not Identify the high spikes, plate cut, missing plate or missing spikes for correction. Given these findings, the Carrier did not abuse its discretion or arbitrarily charge Claimant with rules violations. Thus, no back pay or other benefits or compensation are due to Claimant for the period of August 3, 2015 (dismissed from service) through November 11, 2015 (reinstated to service}.
?An-thony Mossa
Claim denied.
Patrick Halter Neutral Member
Carrier Member Organization Member
2017
2017
Dati'.}7hb { day of
Page 2 of2