PUB CIAW BOARD N0.7544
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way, )
,
,
EmploVftS Division• IBT )
Rall Conferenc• )
)
and
)
l
)
500 Une Railroad Company (CP} l
CaseNo.S
Background
On De<:ember 12; 2016, the earrter Issued to Claimant M, Albert a notice offormal lnvestlgatton and hearing. The noticestated, Inpart the followlngi
"The·purpose of thts investigation/bearing Is to determine the facts and circumstances
and to place responsibility,If any, In connection with your alleged failure to properly flll out your workinglimits form wblte workingInanother employee's working Omits on December 9, 201$. This Indicates a possible violation of, butis not limited to, the
followins rules:
On January 30, 2017, thelnvestlptlon and hearins convened wherein Clalmantand his representatfvtt were afforded the opportunity to present testimony and other evidence aswell as examine the Carrier's witness and three 13) exhibits.
On February 7, 2017, the General Roadmaster- St.Pa...l Issued a dec:ision letter stating that the record c;,f the proceeding established Claimant's violation of charged rule. Based on theviolation, severitv of the lncfdent and Clatmant's dfsclpUnary history, CP assessed Claimant aten(10) day suspension without pay.
on March 17, 2017, the Organization and the Carrier agreed to proaressCralmant's discipline dfspute for
resolution before this Board usingthe abbreviated procedure provlded fur in Paragraph (KJ ofthe PLB
Agreement.
Findings
Public Law Board No. 7544, upon the whole record and all theevldenat, findsthat the parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the RallWay Labor Act,.asamended;.that the Board has Jurisdiction over thedispute herl!ln; and that theparties to thedispute were given due notice of the hearing and did participate therein. , .
PLSNo. 7544
CaseNo.63. AwatdNo.63
Consistent with the PlB.Agreement for this Board, the evldentlary record In this proceeding Iscomprl d of the following: tAJ noticeof investlgatlont (8) transcr!Jrt of Investigation andallrelated exhibits, (CJ·· discipline assessment letter and (D} on-property correspondence related tc:, progressfon of theclalm;
On December 9, 2016, Claimant was the El'l)ployee In Charge ("EiC") for asix (6} person RFD welding crew. aatmant requiredtrack protection for sWlnslnlJa piece of rail over themalnllne with acrane from a BTMtruck andfor "prepwork* ata toc:atlon for theweldfng crew Claimant discussed track protec:tlon with theSupervisor Productron and another EICslnce he was performingwork within that EIC's track and time jurisdiction.
OTS11.3.1, Worklns Umtts Form, states that"[wlhenever working llmitswillbe jointly cx:cupled by
other employees or.trains, the WorldnsUmitt Formmust be fllfedoutby the [EiC} andby those that.are
enterlnt theworklnaHmlts(,]• though Claimant entered theworklnl.limits of theother ElCand Jointly occupied thatarea, ctalmant dfdnotcomplete or fll.1out the form. Oatmant f$ knowledgeable about the WorklngUmits formand rules quaUfled: ht ha$ compl&ted theformon prior occasions.
The Board finds there Is substantlaf evfdente Insupport of theCarrier's dedslon toassess dlsdpllne. Since the dl$dpllne Isnotarbitrary oran abuse of dl etion,.theclaim ls denied Indenyingthedalrn, the Board has considered all arguments and testimony presented bythe Organization In defense of Claimant. ·
Oalm denied.
< Patrick Hatter· Neutral Member
Dated on this 5M day
of :;Mn,• 2018
Ryan Hldafgo
Organfzatlon Member
Paselof2