V.

BNSF RAILWAY

(Fonner ATSF Railway)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Carrier File No. 14-12-0177 Organization File. 170-13Nl-1215

Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

The Carrier violated the Agreement commencing March 8, 2012, when Claimant, Elroy L. Peralto (1423292), was disciplined with a Level S 30-day Record Suspension with a 1-year review period for his alleged failure to document the location of the switch thrown in the position of Switches/Derails portion of Track Authority form while working as Flagman on the Gallup Subdivision on February 9, 2012. The Carrier alleged violation of Maintenance of Way Operating Rule (MOWOR) 8.2 Position of Switches.
As a consequence of the violation referred to in part l the Carrier shall remove from the Claimant's record this discipline and he be reinstated, if applicable, with seniority, vacation, all rights unimpaired and pay for all wage loss commencing March 8, 2012, continuing forward and/or otherwise made whole.

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier or employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

Public Law Board 7590 has jurisdiction over the parties and the dispute involved herein. The Organization argues that the evidence was not sufficient to meet the burden of proof.

Claimant documented 60 entries. He did not include all the details for one switch, but testified that he would have entered the infonnation prior to the end of his shift. According to the Organizati Rule 8.2 does not state a time frame for when the infonnation must be recorded. The Rule was not broken.

The Carrier argues that the Rule requires a contemporaneous entry of the required infonnation when the switch is operated. Further, Claimant admitted that he did not comply with

PLB No. 7590 Award No. 31

the Rule. Because of the admission, the only question is whether the discipline was appropriate

to the misconduct

The Board sits as an appellate forum in discipline cases. As such. it does not weigh the evidence de novo. Thus, it is not our function to substitute our judgment for the Carrier's judgment and decide the matter according to what we might have done bad the decision been ours. Rather, our inquiry is whether substantial evidence exists to sustain the finding against Claimant. If the question is decided in the affirmative, we are not warranted in disturbing the penalty absent ashowing that the Carrier's actions were an abuse of discretion.

A review of the evidence indicates that Claimant, as he admi did not comply with the Rule. The Rule requires contemporaneous entry. The Organfaation points out that Claimant recorded 60 accurate entries. However, that accuracy in recording does not negate the requirement to keep accurate entries of all required documentation. Further, there was no abuse

aL _/;.,,I

. , -scretion in imposing the discipline. Claim denied. ' . : ·

ar"UMIICJa#w '"

Dave Scoville Brian Clauss Samantha Rogers ,...

Organization Member Neutral Member Carrier Member Signed on . lg:IL .2015