!' BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1040
Case No. 8
PARTIES: SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
TO
DISPUTE: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Appeal of Claimant. James Lockhart, Jr.'s, Laborer,
five working-day suspension on July 2, 1991, for
his failure to protect his assignment on a fulltime basis and failure to work in a safe manner.
FINDINGS:
Claimant James Lockhart, Jr. was employed by the carrier as
a laborer in Wisconsin.
On July 2, 1991, the carrier notified the Claimant that he
was being assessed a five working-day suspension from the service
of the carrier as a result of his failure to protect his
assignment on a full-time basis and failure to work in a safe
manner. He was further advised to protect his assignment on July
9, 1991.
On July 8, 1991, the organization, on the Claimant's behalf,
requested that the Carrier agree to the scheduling of a hearing
to determine the facts surrounding the assessment of the five
working-day suspension.
The hearing took place on August 7, 1991. On August 16,
1991, the Carrier notified the Claimant that his five working-day
suspension was being upheld and that the Carrier's actions were
warranted and proper.
On August 19, 1991, the Claimant appealed his suspension and
requested that this matter be brought before this Board.
l
~o~-Co-3
'- This Board has reviewed the testimony and evidence in this
case and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record
to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of failing to
adequately protect his assignment and failure to work in a safe
manner. The record reveals that the Claimant admitted his
tardiness and admitted that he was "tossing" tie plates onto a
car causing the injury to an employee.
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 actionto have been unreasonable, arbitrary or
capricious.
In the case at hand, the Claimant had been working for the
Carrier for less than one year. The Claimant was guilty of two
infractions, one of which could have been very serious. It was
not unreasonable for the Carrier to issue a five-day suspension
to this relatively new employee so that he gets the message that
safety rules and absenteeism requirements must be followed.
The claim will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
P,'ETER MEYERS
Neutral'~Member
Carrier Member Organization Member
Dated: .
2