Brotherhood of l\fointen:mce of \Vay Employes )
Dh·ision - !BT Rail Conference )
)
And )
)
Norfolk Southern Railway Company )
(Fom1cr Southern Rnilwny Company) )
Case No. 254
Award No. 254
Richard K Hanft. Chainnan and Neutral Member
D. M. Pascarella. Employee tvkmbcr
D. J,. Kerby, Carrier l\fomber
ST,\TEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of thl· System Committl'e of the Brotherhood that:
Till· Carrier's discipline jthirty (30) day actm1l suspensionJ of l\fr. ,I, Sudsherry. issul·d br letter dated Decembl·r JO. 201S in connection with his alkged failure to pmpl·rl)' perform his duties as a foreman while working on the Coosa Ri,•er Bridge at Mil<.' Post 108.0N, on November 16, 2015, in that he foik-<l to ensure that Bridhrc and l\uilding (B & B) Helper 'f. nunc:111 utilized fall protection when he exited the cab of hi-mil Vchicle No. 210660 and used a laddl·r to climb down from the track onto the pier to retrieve his walk·t Wlls arbitrary, cnpricious. unjuiit, unwarranted, unreasonable, harsh or excessi,·e and without cause (Carrier's File l\fW-IH-IAM-15-.'.\7-BB-944 SOU).
As a conselJUence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimant J. Sudsberry shall h11ve his suspension Sl't aside with all notations thereof remo\'ed from the Carrier's records and shall also he restored all financial and benefit losses, such as vacation and health insurance benefits (including coverage under the railroad industry national plan) occasioned as a result of the violation, incluc.ling: (1) straight time for each regular work day lost and holid:1y pay for each holiday lost, to be paid at the rate of the position assi1,.'11e<l to <:laimant at the time of suspension from i;ervice (this amount is not reduced by earnings from :iltcmate employment obtained by Claimant while wrongfully
suspen<le<l); (2) any general lump-sum parmmt or rctroactil'l· general wage increase provided in any applicable agreement that became effective while Clnimant was out of sen·icl·; (3) overtime pa)' for lost overtime opportunities based on overtime for any position Claimant cuulc.l have held during the time Clnitnnnt was suspemkd from service or on overtime paid to any junior
Special Board of Adjustment 1049
,\ward No. 254
cmployc for work Claimant could have bid on and performed had Claimant not becn i;ui;pcnded from i;en•ice: and (4) health, dental and visi(ln care insumnce prcmiumi;, Jcducrihles and co-p11}'!! that he would nor l111vc p11id h11J he not been unjustly suspL·ndcd."
FlNDIN(;S:
Special Board of Adjusrnient I 049, upon the whok record and aU of the evidence, finds and holds thnt Employee and Carrier arc employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway I.abor Act, as :unendcd; and, that the l\o;,.rd has jmii;diction over the dispute herein; and, rhat the parties to the Llispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon and did participate therein.
·111is Award is based on thL· facts and circumstances of rhis particular case and shall not serve as a precedent in any other cases.
;\ftcr thoroughly re,·il·wing and considering the record 111u} the parties' prcscntations, the Boatd finds that the claim should be dii;posed of as follows:
Claimant was sumn,oncd to an lnvei;ti!-,rntion hdd on December 14, 2015 to determine his «·sponsibility, if any, in connection with his failure to properly perform his duties as a foreman while working on the Coosa Rin·r Bridge :it t\-IJ> 1OH.ON on Nov,·mhcr 16, 2015 in that the Carrier alleges that Claimant failed to ensure that U&B Helper T. Duncan utilized fall pr<>tl"Cttrn'\ when exiting the cab nf the hi-rail vehicle and ust-d a ladder to climb down from the tmck onto a bridge pier to retrieve his wallet.
The Carrier argued in its i;ubmii;sion to the l\oatd that the record c,·idence show!! that Claimant foiled to properly perform his dutjes as a foreman when he faikd to ensure th:it I klper Duncan utili:,;ed fall protection when exiting the cab uf the truck and failed to conduct a job briefing with Helper Duncan before he exited the tnick to perform new work taski; reL1uired as a rl'!!Ult of the chan!-,rc in the work to move the hi-mil tnick to thl· clear for a train to pass.
The ( )q ani:,;ation strong!)' asserts that the record e,·idcncc fails to show that the Claimant had actual or imputable knowledge that B&B 1-Iclper Duncan wai; enhrnhrcd in a task that reyuired him to ui;e fall protection and thus, Claimant cannot ,·alidl)' be held accountable for his chargc's failure to use fall protection. The Helper nev<.·r told Claimant that he was going tn dimb down onto the pier; Claimant was tinder the impression that the Helper was onlr exiting the truck cab to put away tools and e<.1uipment. Morem·er, at the time that the Helper was exiting the tmck cab, Claimant W:t!! fully engaged on the radio
,·ni;uring track protection.
Special Board of ,\djustment 1049
t\ward No. 254
Claimant, the ( )q.,ranization contends, did not sec thc Helper after he exited the truck under the auspices of just going to clear up their Cl{uiptnl'nt.
Claimant in this matter was, at the time of the incident, a ninl·-year empl<>}'l'e with no disciplinary record. While it is clear from the record that Claimant was pre-occupied on the rndio taking care of other duties he is responsible for, as a foreman there was without doubt, a lapse. Claimant was ne,·erthcless in charge of and responsible for every member of the work group. We cannot say that the decision of the hearing officer that Claimant had fault was wrong. Claimant, in fact, testified that fall protection was a requirement am.I one of the members of his crew that he was responsible for ignored the r<..'l1uirement. (:1:iimant had the responsibility to 1nake certain that all members of his work group followed applicable Norfolk Southem Rules. The Bo:1rd can find no reason to disturb the discipline assessed on the property.
, ,
, ,
'l11e Claim is denied.
. Richard K. Hanft, Chairman
D. M. J>ascal'ella, I mpluyce Mc:mber D. L. Kerby, Carrier-J\fe mber
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, January 22. 201H