SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 1049
AWARD N0.155
Parties to Dispute:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
AND
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Statement of Claim:
Claim on behalf Z. S. Huntley requesting that he be made whole and returned to service
with pay for all time lost, with seniority and vacation unimpaired, as a result of his
dismissal following a formal investigation held on December 6, 2005, for conduct
unbecoming an employee and violation of Norfolk Southern Corporation Safety and
General Conduct Rule GCR-I in connection with his behavior toward his supervisor and
a co-worker while lodged at a motel on September 25, 2005.
(Carrier File MW-GNVL-05-13B-BB-336)
Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are
carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and this board is duly
constituted by agreement under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter.
This award is based on the facts and circumstances of this particular case and shall not serve as a
precedent in any other case.
AWARD
After thoroughly reviewing and considering the transcript and the parties' presentations, the Board finds
that the claim should be disposed of as follows:
The record reflects that on September 27, 2005, Claimant approached his supervisor outside the
supervisor's motel room as the supervisor was returning from dinner and asked his supervisor to cancel a
pending investigation. The supervisor explained that he lacked authority to do so and went to his room.
Shortly thereafter, Claimant banged loudly on the supervisor's door and when the supervisor opened the
door, barged into the room, demanded that the investigation be stopped, behaved belligerently toward the
supervisor and defied the supervisor's directive to leave the room. Eventually, the supervisor, who felt
threatened by Claimant, called motel security. At first, Claimant defied the motel officials' direction to
leave the room but eventually complied. Claimant then went to his room, opened the door so hard that it
damaged the door stop, and continued behaving belligerently, making racially offensive remarks, driving
the coworker with whom he was sharing the room from the room. Carrier clearly proved the charges by
substantial evidence.
Claimant did not attend the hearing, purportedly because he was working another job in another city and
could not afford to come. Carrier did not violate the Agreement by proceeding in absentia. Carrier
postponed the hearing at Claimant's and the Organization's request twice. The Agreement does not give
SBA 1049
A wwrd
I
S S
Claimant a demand right to have the hearing scheduled solely at his convenience.
Claimant engaged in acts of very serious misconduct. At the time of the incidents, he had been in
Carrier's service for less than one year. In view of his short service and the lack of any mitigating
circumstances, we cannot say that the penalty imposed was arbitrary, capricious or excessive. The claim
is denied.
M. H. Malin
Chairman and Neutral Member
D. rtholomay D. L. Kerby
Organ' a 'on Member Carrier Member
Issued at Chicago, Illinois on October 30, 2006