)
)
)
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY )
Claimant- R.Evans
review period for failing to wear seat
..,....,..,.... The Claimant entered service the Carrier
As a safety measure, Carrier vehicles are fitted with DriveCam video cameras that can record what is happening inside the vehicle when it is in motion. While the cameras are actually in operation all the time, the actual recording function is only triggered by certain events, such as hitting a large bump in the road or taking a corner too sharply. When the DriveCam is activated, it records for eight sec:onos. The Carrier regularly reviews the DriveCam footage; if employees are seen
violating any of the Carrier's rules, someone will investigate.
On July 14, 2014, the Claimant was working as a Gang Trackman near 
Wyoming, on the Subdivision. He several other employees were traveling from one work location to another in a Carrier van when the
Hill reviewed the DriveCam video and concluded that the Claimant and other employee were not wearing their seat belt. On July 16, 2014, the sent a
informing them that an investigation their "alleged failure
belt while riding as a passenger BNSF
appears that DriveCam retains a
recorders. The footage has to be accessed other words, the Carrier does not have own copy the recording. More importantly, DriveCam prohibits downloading any of its video footage. According to Mr. Hill's testimony, the policy is for privacy and security reasons. The Organization asked to have a screen shot of another part of the recording made and entered into the record, which was done. The
he was a belt when the was taken.
Following the investigation, by letter dated August 6, 2014, Carrier found that Claimant was in violation of MWSR 1.4.9 Seat Belts; MSR 12.5, Seat Belts;
MSR 14.1.2, Seat Belts. The Claimant was assessed a Level S 30 Day Record with a review period commencing August 6,
at the nP<>Jrmcr about how the DriveCam
activated.
activated. That
someone is
motion, failure to wear a seat belt while underway is a serious safety violation and categorized as a Serious violation under the
Policy for Employee Performance Accountability, or PEPA. The Claimant was assessed the correct discipline for a first Level S violation. The Organization contends
not met burden the photographs inconclusive there was no testimony to what
Claimant's strong affirmation that he was wearing his seat belt. The Organization protests that the determination that the Claimant had violated the seat belt rules was
.,,,,..,....,._. the discipline was
investigation and did not watch the video. Therefore he had no basis for making informed judgments about credibility, which in and 
Public Law Board 7602, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the carrier and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934. This Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The Claimant was found to have violated MWSR 1.4.9, MSR 12.5 and MSR
14.1.2. The opening language of all three rules is the same: "Wear seat belts while operating or riding in equipment or vehicles that are equipped with them." The safety benefits of wearing seat belts are so well-known that they need no explication by the Board, and prior decisions of the Board have recognized the Carrier's right to treat employees' failure to buckle up as serious safety violations, warranting discipline under PEPA at Level While seat belt rules have the same opening
MSR and MWSR 1.4.9 also set forth certain circumstances that operate as
The question before the Board whether the burden of proof to establish that Claimant was wearing
was filmed by the DriveCam. The video that was played several times at the hearing is
the before the Board. There however, two photographs taken from
by the
are or not. In the photograph, it appears that the Claimant is not wearing a seat belt. In comparison to the driver, is no visible shoulder belt crossing his chest. The Organization's photograph purportedly shows the edge the upper portion of the shoulder belt angling up from the middle of Claimant's chest to his left shoulder. The Claimant testified at the hearing that the lap belt was broken and only the only the shoulder belt was
Board the advantage being able to watch the actual video, which was played the hearing. The video, even thought it was only eight seconds long, would have shown how the Claimant was moving in the van, which might make more was Without 
5
was
his seat belt when the DriveCam filmed him. """"''"'" '"""' typically fasten in different directions on
belts are attached to the side interior walls. Shoulder belts on the driver's side will run from the driver's or passenger's left shoulder diagonally across and down to fasten at his right hip. Conversely, shoulder belts on the passenger side will run from the
right shoulder diagonally across and down to fasten his
a different angle altogether. The the supposed u,,-,, -·
follows the same angle as the is
opposite angle to how it would normally fasten. Moreover, a close look at the side to the Claimant's right appears to show a seat belt coming down from a small
"'"'''.. "''... near the laying flat it
were fastened around the Claimant. (There is a similar shoulder belt visible pillar behind the driver.
pillar
The evidence in the record sufficient to conclude that Carrier met burden of proving that the Claimant was not wearing his seat belt when filmed by the DriveCam on July 14, 2014. Given that seat belt violations are treated as serious
violations, the Level S 30 Day Record Suspension with a three-year review period that was assessed against the Claimant was consistent with the progressive discipline set forth in the PEPA. The Board will not disturb the Carrier's conclusion that the Claimant was in violation of the seat belt rule or its determination of the appropriate penalty.
AWARD
