PUBUC lAW BOARD N0. 7544
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way, )
Employees Division• IBT J
Rall Conference )
)
and }
J
)
)
soo LIM Railroad Company (CP) )
case No. 74
AwardNo.74
System FIie No. 0-14-17-445-07
BackRroynd
On February 28, 20'17. the Carrier Issued to Claimant L carnacho a notice offormal lnvestlgatfon and
hearing. The noticestated, In part, thefollowf ,
or.
or.
Hfhe purpos•ofthe Investigation andhearlnglstodevelop all the facts and place responsibility, ihny, In conn ion with vour alleged fallure to not have sight distance chart filledout and also nothavingkrderund not flllfngout pre tripsreen book on Februarv 6*, 2017, This lndlcates a possible vloiatlon. but Is not limlted to, tht following rut :
> orszt.s•ResaonsfbHJttaof lookouts
), OTS 30.0• Job 8riefJnc
> fiSsafety Rule CONt 7,.Vehicles. Mate,lals. Equipment and Toof,
> oTS 20,zz• General Qrm»
On March 2. 2017, the Investigation and hearingconvened wherein Claimant and his representative
presented testimonyand two{2)exhlblts and e>eamlned the Carrier's witness andfive (5) exhibits.
On March 16/0' 2017, ttleSentotTrack Manager Issued adedslon letter to Clalmantstatlntthat the rec;ord of the proceeding established Claimant's rules violations ascha!'led. The March16, 201l decision letter staled the ftillowlnst
"Based onthe facts and evidence In thehearing record, the severity of the Incident,. and yaur past dlsdpflne history, this Incident could warrant your dismissal. However, solely as a matter of managerial leniency and stri<:tly on a 'fast chance' buls, you are hereby assessed dJsclpllne of twenty (20) days actual suspension to beserved.. The time se.-ved will bedetennlned by your manager.
This Is your lastchance todemonstrate your understandlna cifthe Company:'$ Rules,
Pollc:les andGuidelines and thatvouarewlllln& and able tocomply with thern. Any Mur,t proven violation of ¢ompany Rules, PQllcles or Gulde!lnes may be subject to dis fp!!parv. a ja Qd mffj r,s Inyo r lsrnl •!l," ·
;,j •
PLBNo. 7544
case No. 74
AwardNo..14
on April 161 2017, theOrganizatron and the Carrier agreed toprosress Claimant's dlsdplfne dispute for resolution before thfs Board using the.abbreviated procedure provided for fn Paragraph (K) of the PLB Agreement.
FlndJna
Public Law Board Na. 7544, upon thewhole record andallthe evidence.. finds that the parties herein are Carrier and EmJ)loyes within the meaning of the RaQway Labor A¢ asamended; thatthe Boatd haa Jurisdiction over the dfspute herein; and thatthe partles to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing and did participate thereJn. ·
Consistent with the PLBAgreement for this Board. theevidentlary record In this proceedln& Is comprised: of the following{Al notice of Investigation, (B) transcript of Investigation and all relatedexhibits, (C) dfsdpllne assessment letter and (Dl on-property correspondence related to progression of thedalm.
At theoutset ohhe hearin& theOrpnlzatlon ob edt.otheCarrier's O;!cordatlon of the proceeding with the transc:rlptlonlst located off-site asthistan result In an Inaccurate and Incomplete ree.ord. The Orpnlzatlon requests that the transcrlptlonlstbephysically present to reeord the proceedlnp. The Boardffnds the transcript of the proceeding complete and accurate which issuffident for thistribunal's use In rendenna adedsfQn.
On February 6, 2017, the Roadmsster observed a three (3) man crew standfna behind a truck:aside from the tracks. datmant wasthe Employee In Charge (EiC); the crew was preparing to Jubrlcate switches.
Claimant alsoserved asthe lookout to provide track protection for the crew. The Roadmaster revfewed theJob briefing book;: it was Incomplete as required emploYff' signatures were missing. Claimant acknowledged he wasunsure how tocomplete thelookout chart In the book.The chart requires unobstructed site distance, track class and track speed to ensure sufficient time for employel!S to clear
the track. The Incomplete brlefln& book and chart violated OTS 30.1, Conducting a Job Bri.fing, and ors
29.S, Responslbllltles of Lookouts.
The Roadmaster asked to revfew thegeneral orders; Oalmant did not have general orders whichare required papen containing mandatory directives about trackconditions Claimant was unsure whether A-orders were In the truck. The Roadmaster fooked at thetrucl(s records; the areen bookvehicle Inspection (walk around fnspectfon 101 book) was notfilled out. Thfs violates OiS 20.2.2, aiangeof a Rule, General Order, or Speclal Instructions and ESSafety Rufe core 7- Vehlcles, Materials, Equipment and Toots,
TheRoadmaster showed Claimant how to complete tha green book, Job briefing book andsitedistance chart; Claimant wasreceptive tothe instruction. Prior to the Incident date, Claimant was present during an Informational discussion presented by a Federal Railroad Adminfstratlon {FRA) representativeon expectations for lookouts, train detection¥ sitedistance chart and knowing speed of trac
The Board finds there Issubstantial evidence Insupport of the Carrier's decislon to assessdlsdpline to aatmant andthe level of dfsdplfne assessed reflects a consideration of the Organization'sdefenses and Claimant's responses. Since the dlsdpllne is not arbitrary or an abuseof discretion, the Board will deny theclalm.
PLBNo. 7S44
cassNo,.74
AwardNo.74
Claim denied.
Patrick Halter
Neutral Member
Carrier Member
Dat.ed ';7&11 day
of. ,, ,2011
Ryan HtdalSo Organization Member