:r
BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1040
Case No. 2
. PARTIES: SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
TO
DISPUTE: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
(CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC SYSTEM FEDERATION)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Letter of reprimand assessed
B.
J. Adler, charging him with
violation of the Safety Instructions 41, 42, and 45
FINDINGS:
On July 19, 1990, the Claimant, B. J. Adler, was observed on duty
not wearing his hard hat and safety glasses, by Roadmaster J: D.
Burshiem who, consequently, issued a letter of reprimand to the
Claimant on July 24, 1990. An investigation was held on August 31,
1990, to determine the facts surrounding the letter of reprimand
issued to B.J. Adler, and as a result, the letter of reprimand
remained in Claimant's file. The Organization thereafter filed a
claim on Claimant's behalf challenging his discipline.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding that the Claimant was guilty of violating the Safety
instructions 41, 42, and 45 when he was not wearing his hard hat and
safety glasses while on duty on July 19, 1990. Although the Claimant
contends that he was resting under a tree when he was caught without
his safety glasses and hard hat, there is sufficient evidence in the
record to establish that he was working on his job in an area where he
should have been wearing the safety equipment. That action was in
violation of the rules and the Carrier had every right to impose
discipline.
S
Li - ~° Y o - c~.~
Once this'Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the guilty finding, we next must turn our
attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set
aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
In the case at hand, the Claimant was issued a letter of
reprimand. The record reveals that the Claimant has been employed by
the Carrier since 1980 and had a fairly clean disciplinary history
with the exception of
a
first warning in October of 1989. Given the
fact that a written reprimand is one of the lowest forms of discipline
for infractions of this kind, this Board cannot find that the action
taken by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award
Claim denied.
Y
Neutral Memb r
Carrier Member Organization Member
Date:
2