PUBIJC LAW BOARD N0.7544'
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way )
Employees Division• IBT )
RaU Confennc:a )
)
)
)
)
SOO Une RaHroad Company (CP1 }
OtseNo.n:
System FIie No. 0-24-17 5-14
Qackm;ound
On February 281 2017, theCarrier Issued to Clafmant K. Kuehn a notfee of formal Investigation and
hearln1, The notice stated,In part, thefollowing:
'1The pul'J)ose of the Investigation and hearing Is todevelop all the factsand place responsibility, if any, In connection with your alleged rnlsconduc:t when asked ta Inspect track In the Hastlnss Yard on February 2 2017. This lndlcaw a possible violation of, but notllmfted to,.the following rules:
> §COR1,§- CondY<
On March 16,2017, the lnvestlgatron and. hearing convened wherein Claimant and his representatrve were afforded the opportunity to present testimony and otherevidence as well asexamine thecarrier's witness and three(3) exhibits.
On March 31, 2017, the Director Track & Structures -st. Paut Issued a decision letter to Cfalmant stating that the record of the proceeding established Claimant's violatfon of GCOR 1.6 - Conduct. Based on the investigation and hearing record, severity of the lnddent, and Claimant's past dlsdpllnary record¥ CP assessed Cfalrnant a five (S)day suspension of which two (2) dayswereserved without pay and three (3) days deferred for sbc (6) mo Should dalmant commit aRQtber Infraction durlngthe month
period the 3-day deferred suspension wlll become a 3-dav.sserved.
on April 6, 2017, the Organization and the carrier agreed to progress Claimant's discipline dispute for resolution before this Board usingtheabbreviated procedure provided for rn Paragraph (K)of the PLB
Agreement.
finding
Public Law Board No, 7S44, upon the wholerecord and all the evidence, finds ttlatthe parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway labor Act, asamended; that the Board has Jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and that the parties tothedispute weregiven due notice of the hearing and did participate therein.
PlSNo. 7544
case No. 72
Award No. 72
Consistent with the PLBAgreementfor this Board, the evldentlary record In this proceedln1 lscomprised of thefoltowlng:(At notl of Investigation.(BJ tran$Ctlpt of lnvestigaUon and all related exhibits, (C) discipline assessment letter and (O) on-property correspondence relatedto progression of the claim.
Claimant is a s onforeman In Hastings Yard and has approximately flve (S) years oherv .with the Carrier. As a section foreman Claimant Is qualifiedto Inspect track. Dul'fng a7:00 a.m. Job brteffn1on February 27, 2017, the Assistant oadmaster (AR) Informed Claimant that he andthe AR wouldlnspect Hastings Yard because the track Inspector hadfour (4) yards to Inspect In two (2) days. Claimant approached the AR.and arsued In a louderthan.normat voice that he wasaforeman,. nota trade· Inspector, and l11spectlon Wff not part oh forem ul's job. CTalmant stated he would "wribt upevery mother fucking thing In this yard. •• I am not refusing to do theJob but.I atn sayingthis Is bullshit." CTalmant performed the track Inspection with the AR In Hastfnp Yard on February 21, 2017.
ClaJmant does notdeny makfngthe c:omm• tothe.f\ft but notes hewasfrustrated by thechange In work planssince he would be unable ta help Illscrew•. Claimant ls rule$.quallfled and acknowledged employees areto conduct1hemselvesIna professional manner with co-workers and CP'sofficers, Claimant's quarrelsome statements were discourteous with the profanity·and·unprofessional towards the ARInthepresence.of the crew duringthe briefing. There lssubstantial evidence to support th• Carrier's assessment of dlsc;lplfne to Claimant for vk;>fatln& GCOR 1.6 • Conduct. Since thedlsclpllne. assessed fs notarbitrary or anabuseof dfscretlon, the Board will deny the claim.
Clalm denied.
Patrick Halter Neutral Member
Anthony Masso:
Carrfer: Member
Ryan HldalRo
Organization Member
Dated,Jhls filh day
oft[,. ,201Jl
Page Zof2