)

RAILWAY COMPANY

Claimant - John Robison

Record Suspension a one year ......,•.,.,"' operating equipment. The Claimant entered

March 2006.

........../;;. to wear a seat

with Carrier on

The basic facts of what happened are not in dispute. On June 24, 2014, Claimant was working as a Machine Operator on Gang RPI0, which was working in and around MP 272.6 on the Cherokee Subdivision. At some point early in the day, the Gate Spiker that the Claimant was operating broke down a gauging wheel fell off. Although it did not take long to repair the wheel, by the time the machine was

.....,,n.., to be returned to service, the gang had moved ahead. The testified at

the investigatory hearing that he felt pressured to get back into the field to make up the lost time, and when he entered the cab to get back to work, he simply forgot to fasten his seat belt. Division Engineer Watkins was present at the work site that day,

.,..,.,.,.. ..,..,. the as he was give him a measure. Watkins noticed that Claimant was not wearing a seat belt but did not say anything to him. Watkins contacted the Production Assistant Roadmaster for the gang, Michael Buchholz, told him that it appeared that the Claimant was not wearing a seat belt, and

seven

continued work, spiking

later, charged him with failing wear a

the day. The Claimant had still not fastened

before they returned a

al!,a,rD.rli hi1n his

The Carrier issued a notice of investigation by letter dated June 27, 2014, "for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility, if any, in connection with your alleged failure to wear a seat belt while operating equipment on June 24, 2014 at approximately 0950 hours . Following a mutually agreed

was July "Approaching Others" program was

Claimant of his obligation to wear a seat belt in lieu of formally Buchholz testified that by the time involved it was ''too

the Claimant was already violating the rule and ''we have a duty as supervisors

"

Day Record Suspension with a review period. The Organization filed an appeal, and the parties having

to resolve the matter mutually, it has been appealed to the Board for decision.

The Carrier contends that the Claimant admitted that he was not wearing a seat belt when he was observed by Watkins and Buchholz, so the violation was established. Failing to wear a seat belt is a serious safety violation, and the standard discipline is a Level S 30 Day Record Suspension and a review period. The Carrier treated the Claimant the sa1ne as any other employee who is found not wearing a seat belt and there is no basis to reverse the discipline. In response, the Organization argues that the Claimant was set up and ambushed for when he si1nply forgot to fasten his seat belt in his hurry to return to work. The Carrier has touted its "Approaching program, but instead of using it, supervisors impose harsh and excessive discipline on employees who are only trying to do a good job. Throwing the book at employees for minor infractions is no way to foster productive labor-1nimagement relations. Discipline under PEPA is for employees who show a "marked disregard" for the Carrier's rules, and this is not such a case. If operating a gate spiker without a seat

Public Law Board 7602, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that

carrier and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively

..........,... ._ of Railway

dispute nn,.,n.... ..

The Claimant was found to have violated MWSR which states: ··Wear

belts them.

..,.,.,,..,.,..," that are equipped

they need no recognized the

The Claimant candidly acknowledged that forgot his seat belt hurry to get back to work after the Gang Spiker was repaired. Anyone who bas ever dashed into their car late for an appointment and driven off without first fastening their seat belt can understand how that might happen. That does not make the failure to wear the seat belt any less dangerous, however. Moreover, in this case, Watkins initially observed the Claimant not wearing his seat belt but did not say anything. When Buchholz returned some minutes later, the Claimant was still not wearing a seat belt. They left and returned again still later, and the Claimant was still not wearing a seat belt. At some point, what started as an accidental oversight becomes a rules violation. The Claimant's forgetting to fasten his seat belt when he first got back into the Gang Spiker was understandable. But he continued to work without it long enough for Watkins and Buchholz to come and go three times before taking

belt Watkins' initial Watkins' and Buchholz' first visit together, they might have let the matter go. When his supervisors observed him continuing to work without a seat belt over a period of time, however, it was not inappropriate for them take action. Failing to wear a seat

AWARD

Claim denied.

ORDER

Date