PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7544
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way }
Employees Olvlslon • IBT )
Rail Conference )
)
and )
)
)
)
SOO line Railroad Company (CP) )
Case No. 43
Background
On July 11, 2016, the Carrier issued to Claimant C. Sisson a notice of formal Investigation and hearing.
The notice stated, In part, the following:
"The purpose of this investigation ls to determine the facts and circumstances and to place your responslbillty, if any, in connection with your alleged involvement where you were witnessed in a Company vehicle making a reverse movement without an employee outside flagging the reverse movement. Mr. Blumhagen was also witnessed outside of the Company vehicle without any safety glasses on. This was witnessed by Tralnmaster Ross McMahon on July 5th, 2016, at Carrington, ND.
This indicates a possible violation of, but is not limited to, the following rules: Engineering Safetv Rule Book - £2 Vehicles Used for Company Bysines:e
Engineering Safety Rule Book - E-23 Pecsonal Protective Equipment and Clothing
Ryle 6 - Eye and Face Protection''
On August 2, 2016, the formal investigation and hearing convened wherein Claimant and his representative presented testimony and one (1) exhibit and examined the Carrier's witness and five (5) exhibits numbered 1, 3 4, s and 6.
On August 12, 2016, the Assistant Chief Track • Glenwood notified Claimant that the record of the proceeding established Claimant's violation of Engineering Safety Rule Book E-2, Vehicles Used for Company Business. Based on the rule violation and Claimant's past dlsclplinary record, the carrier assessed Claimant a five (5) day actual suspension.
On August 22, 2016, the Organization and the carrier agreed to progress Oalmant's discipline dispute for resolution before this Board using the abbreviated procedure provided for in Paragraph (K) of the PLB Agreement.
Findings
Public Law Soard 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 evldentlary record in this proceeding is comprised of the following: (A) notice of Investigation, (Bl transcript of Investigation and allrelated exhibits, (C) discipline assessment letter and (D) on-property correspondence related to progression of the claim.
At the outset of the hearing, the Organization objected to the Carrier recordation of the proceeding with the transcrlptionlst located off-site because this results in an Incomplete and inaccurate record. The Board finds the transcript of the proceeding complete and accurate which is sufficient for this tribunal to render a decision.
on July 6, 2016, the Trainmaster approached the depot in Carrington, ND, and observed a CP welding truck in reverse movement for ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet towards the gravel area between the mainline and the team track. In the Carriers vehicle with Claimant, the driver, was a co-worker who did not exit the vehicle prior to the reverse movement commencing. As the Trainmaster neared the crossing, Claimant stopped the truck's reverse movement and the co-worker exited and walked to the truck's rear to guide Claimant for another twenty-five (25) feet in reverse movement.
The depot is on the south side of the tracks and the Tralnmaster approached Claimant driving the Carrier's truck from the north side. Claimant was aware of the rule that requires flagging the truck's reverse movement when there are at least two (2) employees In the Carrier's vehicle. According to Clalmaot, he and his co-worker observed the Trainmaster driving at a "faster than normal speed" towards them when they were in the truck. Claimant and his co-worker discussed the situation and determined that the prudent course of action, consistent with GCOR 1.1.1, Maintaining a Safe Course, was for Claimant to continue driving the truck to clear the crossing and, thereafter, the co-worker would exit the truck and flag for Claimant to continue the drive onto the roadway.
Claimant states the Tralnmaster did not allow him to provide an explanation for the situation; however, the Trainmaster stated that Claimant's co-worker accepted allresponsibility for the rules violations. The Tralnmaster stated that he was traveling at less than twenty-five (25) miles per hour towards the depot. The Board notes that the Tralnmaster was driving on a road with sharp turns (left and right) which makes "faster than normal speed" problematic and unproven by Claimant.
Claimant Is a welder with approximately nine (9) years of service. Claimant Is rules quallfied and aware of the rules the Carrier charged him with violating. In this regard, the Carrier issued a Safety Information Notice on May 6, 2016, which was two (2) months prior to this Incident, emphaslzlng the Importance of adherence to Safety Rule Book E·2. NotwithstandingClaimant's compliance with the safety rules in the past, the Board finds there is substantial evidence in support of the Carrier's decision that Claimant violated Engineering Safety Rule Book· E2 Vehicles Used for Company Business when he commenced a reverse movement in the Carrier's vehicle without allowing his co-worker to exit the truck and provide
flagging assistance. Since the assessed discipline is not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, the discipline remains unclisturbed and the clai!ll will be denied.
Claim denied.
Patrick Halter
Neutral Member
Anthony Mosso Carrier Member
Ryan Hidalgo Organization Member
Oated..on this 2!/!!Jday
ofJttlfl/lJ)f°l?.