PUBLIC tAWBOARD NO. 7544
)
and )
)
)
)
Case No.SO
l\ r(f No.50
System File No. IJ.5$ 16-445-25
Background
Oh May 2, 2016, the. tarrier Issued to da,mantJ. Fischer a noticeofformal Investigation and hearing.,
The notice stated, in part, the followlngt
"The purpose ofthis investigatlon is to determine the facts and circumstances and to place responsibility, if any, in.connection wlthyouralleged lnvolvementwhereynµ and yourwork group were found totta left on-trackwork equipment unattendedwithout being properly protected on Aprll2Slli, 2016. This indicates possibleviolation of, but ls not limited to, thefolloWlng rules:.
US OTS Rules and Procedures- 23.2,8 Unattended On,.rrack Equipment
usors Rutes and Procedure, .. 30,1ConductfnlJa Job @deflns
GC:OR 14,S Protecting Men.andEguiemenf
The lnvestlgatlon/hearing convened, asschedu!ed, Qn May 101c 2016, wherein Clairnant and his representatlve were afforded the opportunity to present testimony and other evidence aswell as examine the O!trier'stwo (2} witnessesandfour{4) exhibits,
On May 23, 2016,the Assistant Chief'rrack • Glellwood. notlfle<i claimant tbanhe rewrct Qf the.
investigatron/hearlngestabfJshed violations of ors 23.2.8 and OTS 30.1when Claimant (I)·left
e.tjtJlpment unattended at Carlos, MN, (ii)did not effectively tock and tag the West Former Siding Switch and (!if} failed toconduct a proper or sufficient job debriefing. Based on the rulesand procedures. violatrons, severity of the incident and his pastdisclpllnary re rd, the Carrier assessed Clafmant a suspension ofthlrty (M) workdays (two hundred forty{240)hour.s).
On Julw11, 2016, the Organizatlon and the carrier agreed to progress Claimant's discipline dispute for resolutfon before this Board using the abbreviated procedure provided for In Paragraph (K} of the PLB
Agreement.
PLB No. 7544
Case No. 50
Award No. 50
Findings
Public 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 evidentiary 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.
At the outset of the hearing, the Organization objected to the Carrier's recordation of the proceeding with the transcriptionist located off-site. The Board finds the transcript of the proceeding complete and accurate which is sufficient for the Board to render a decision.
Claimant is rules qualified with over twenty (20) years of service with the Carrier. On April 25, 2016, the Manager of Machine Operator Qualifications inspected the West Former Siding Switch at Carlos, MN, and discovered the switch was not locked and tagged in accordance with OTS 23.2.8, Unattended On Track Equipment. That is, "any switch which provides access to the track must be locked with an effective locking device and tagged as out of service to prevent movement into track." The switch had the Carrier's high security lock, but it did not have, as required by OTS 23.2.8, an engineering lock that prevents the switch from activating which, when activated, allows equipment to roll onto the main track. Additionally, the switch was not tagged showing it as out-of-service. Claimant acknowledged to the Manager that he made a mistake. There is substantial evidence that Claimant violated OTS 23.2.8 as charged.
As for OTS 30.1, Conducting A Job Briefing, the Manager testified that Claimant's crew member informed the Manager there was no job debriefing. There was no recollection in testimony from Claimant or the crew member to confirm any discussion whether the West Former Siding Switch was properly locked and tagged prior to departing the worksite. The Board finds a violation of OTS 30.1.
The Carrier also charged Claimant with violating GCOR 14.5, Protecting Men and Equipment; however, the Carrier's decision letter did not identify GCOR 14.5 as violated by Claimant.
Since there is substantial evidence of Claimant's violations OTS 23.28 and OTS 30.1, and Claimant acknowledged he was aware of the rules, the Board finds that theimposition of discipline is not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. Thus, the 30-day suspension remains undisturbed.
Claim denied.
Patrick Halter Neutral Member
Page 2 of 3
PLBNo, 7544
Case No. 50
O . ward No. 50
Anthony Mqsso
Catrler Member
Oaoft.e·· ···· . .·h2r0'/.di.
Organization Member
PageioU