Rall Conference ·1
)
)
)
)
CaseNo.71 Award No. 71
Sy am file No.D..Q8..17-5U)-0!
Background
On January 23,1017, the Carrier is,sued toClaimant N, Martin a notice of formal Investigation and heartns. Thenoticestated...In part, thefollowing
"The purposeofthfs Investigation/hearingIs to determine thefacts and circumstances and to place your responsibility,Ifany,Inconnection withyour allegedfallure where you were discourteous. andInsubordinate to a Companv offtcer onJanuary 10"', 2017. This Indicatesa possible violation of, but Is not llmlt d.to, the following rules:
.. > GCQfl1.6- COnduc<
On February 2, 2017, theformal lnvestigatlon/hearlns convened wherein Cfalmantand his representativewere afforded the opportunity to present testimony and other evidence as welf as examine the carriers witness and two (2) exhibits.
On February 27, 2017t the Director Track and Structures- Glenwood notified Cfalrnantthat the record of theproceeding established Claimant's violation of GCOR 1.6- Conduct. Basedon thEt evldentlary record, severity of lncldentand Cfalmant's past dfsclpllnary record, the carrier assessed Claimant ten (10l days on record of which five($) dayswoufd beserved.
On March 17, 2017, the Organization and the Carrier agreed to progress Claimasdiscipline dfspute for resolution before this Board usingtheabbreviated procedure provided for In Paraa,aph IK}of the PLB Agreement.
Findings •
Public Law Board No. 7544, upon thewhole record and all the evidence, finds that the parties herein are carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, asamended; thatthe Board has Jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and that the parties to thedispute were given due notice of the hearing and did participate therein.
PLBNo. 7S44
Case No. 71
Award No. 71
Conslstel'!t with the PlB Agreement for this Board, the evidentlary record in this proceeding Is comprised of the following: (A) notice of lnvestigatio!l, (B) transcript of Investigation and all related exhibits, (C) d!scipllne assessment letter and (D) on-property correspondence related to progression of the claim.
At the out$et of the hearfns, the Organization objected tothe Carrier's recordatlon of the proceeding with the transcrlptionlst located at an off slte, remote location. Experience shows, BMW£ states, this method of transcription can result In an Inaccurate and Incomplete record. The Organization requested that the transcrlptlonlst be physically present to record the proceedings. CP denied the BMWE request. The Board findsthe transcript of the proceeding complete and accurate which Is sufficient for this tribunal's use In rendering a decision.
The circumstances which gave rise to this: proceeding Involve new and modified expectations for employees and breaks when fueling a CP vehicle during the workday, onJanuary 10, 2017,. Claimant
wason a crew In a CP truck which stop d for fuel at a service station and, during thiss:top for fuel, Clalmant purchased adrink and used the restroom; The Board finds that the need to stopfor fuel was due to the night crew using the truck but not refueling it at the end of their shift. The Manager - Production observed the truck, Claimant and the crew; the Manager contacted the Roadmaster to determine the expectation, for emplcyees in this circumstance. Stopping to fuel the truck and Claimant's break were in accordance with the expectations in effect on January 10, 2017. After fueling the truck, Oaimant and the crew cleaned a switch on the west end of town In the windy, ground-blizzard snowy conditions asthe Roadmaster had instructed them to do.
After cleaning the west-end switch and returning to the trucki Claimant Informed the crew that thetrain crew on the east end of town needed assistance fllpplng a crossover switch. The Manager approached Claimant and the crew to clarifyand confirm the expectations about stopping for fuel and breaks during the workday; According to the Manager, Claimant was discourteous and Insubordinate as he walked away while the Manager spoke with the crew. Claimant denies Insubordination and states thecrew was proceeding to theeast end of town to a$$1st a train crew. Claimant states he believed the Manager had concluded his conversation with the crew. The carrier assessed Claimant a 10-day on the record suspension of which 5 days were served.
The Board findsthere Is Insufficient evidence to support the Carrier's assessment of discipline to Claimant. Claimant informed the c:rew that the train crew at the east endof town needed assistance with acrossover switch. Oalmant did not walk away from the Manager as an act.of Insubordinationor discourteous behavior but to comply with the Roadmaster's lnstructfons to assist train crew movement. Even If the Manager had not concluded his conversation, Claimant was present at the end of the workday for the entire meetingwhen the Manager addressed the crew, again, about the Carrier's expectations for employees during the workday. Since there Is Insufficient evidence to support the Carrier's position, the Board will sustain the clalm, the mark of discipline on Claimant's record Is rescinded and expunged and the Organfzatio s requested remedy Is granted.
Claim sustained.
Page2oU
z Anthony Mosso carrier Member
Dated onthis Sfli day
of...T@, ,20,U
Patrick Halter Neutral Member
PLB No. 7544
Case No, 71
Award No. 71·
Ryan Hidalgo
Organization Member
Page3 of3