BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1040
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
Case No. 24
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Appeal of Claimant William Welter's dismissal from the Carrier's
service.
FINDINGS:
On January 12, 1995, the Claimant was verbally advised that he had been
disqualified as a welder foreman because of his failure to maintain a valid driver's license.
Furthermore, the Claimant was advised that he was restricted from holding any position
which required a driver's license.
On January 17, 1995, the Carrier notified the Claimant to appear for a formal
investigation on January 25, 1995, to determine the Claimant's responsibility for allegedly
driving a Carrier vehicle with a suspended license, furnishing false information to
Roadmaster Francke, failing to properly report driving record violations, and being tardy
on January 12, 1995. The hearing was later postponed to February 10, 1995.
On February 23, 1995, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he had been found
guilty as charged, and, subsequently, Claimant was dismissed from the Carrier's service.
On February 26, 1995, the Claimant advised the Carrier of his desire to appeal his
loqo-~14
dismissal under the provisions of the Agreement and this matter is now before this Board.
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 several Carrier rules by driving a Carrier vehicle while holding a
suspended license, furnishing false information to his supervisor, and failing to properly
report his driving record. Claimant admitted at the hearing that he did not immediately
tell his supervisors that his driver's license had been suspended and that "it took coaxing"
before he told the Carrier representative. He also stated, "I really don't have a good
answer for that", when asked why he continued driving a Carrier vehicle which he knew
required a license when his license was suspended. Finally, it is clear that the Claimant
left out pertinent information including other traffic violations and the fact that his
driver's license had been suspended when he gave a written statement to the Carrier on
May 6, 1994, indicating that he "got one speeding ticket in the last year of driving".
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to
support the guilty finding, we next 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 actions
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. '
The Claimant in this case was properly found guilty of serious violations involving
his honesty. He was aware that his job required a valid driver's license and he knowingly
failed to notify the Carrier that he did not have a valid driver's license. In addition, he
2
loyc)a14
admittedly held back information about previous driving violations in the past year when
he notified the Carrier in writing that he had only one driving violation.
The Carrier elected to terminate the Claimant's employment because of these
serious violations involving dishonesty. This Board cannot find that the Carrier acted
unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it made its decision to terminate the
Claimant. The Claimant began his employment with the Carrier in June of 1991 and
although his record was relatively discipline-free, this Carrier was acting within its
authority when it terminated the Claimant for the dishonest acts of operating a Carrier
vehicle with a suspended license and furnishing false information to the Carrier regarding
his driving record. The Carrier could have potentially faced some serious ramifications if
the Claimant was involved in an on-the-job accident after having not properly advised the
Carrier of his background and current license situation. Although the action taken by the
Carrier is severe, this Board is not in the position to rethink the decision made by the
Carrier. We find that the Carrier's action in this case was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
AWARD:
Claim denied.
c
PETER R. ME RS
Neutral Memb
3
.~. IDUb-ay
Carrier Member Organization Member
DATED: DATED:
4