Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes )
Division - IBT Rail Conference )
)
And )
)
Norfolk Southern Railway Company )
(l"ormer Southern Railway Company) )
Case No. 255
,\ward No. 255
S:J 'ATH fENT FCL \I M:
Richard K Hanft. Chainn.,n and Neutral Ml"tnbcr
D. l\f. Pascardla, I mployee Member
L Kerby, Carrier Member
"Claim of the System Committl"e of the Brotherhood that:
The Cartier's discipline (dismissal) of Mr. K. Carlton, issued by letter date<l March 20, 2015, in connection with his alle1-,te<l improper performance of duty and failure to work safclr in that while operating Company Section 'l'ruck No. 209605 at approximately 8:00 ,\.M. on February 12, 2015, on the right of way of the South End of the Forrcstville Yard in Rome, Ccorgia, he :mcmptcd to perform a 3-point turn and failed to stop the vehicle: after losing sight of his 1-,,round man, creating a dan1-,tcr<.ms work situation and, also, upon re establishing line of sight with his ground man, he failed to follow the: stop s4",tt1als prn\'idcd and impacted a private: vehicle. n·sulting in damn to the private vehicle, was a1·hitrary, capricious, unjust, unwarrantnl, unreasonable, harsh or excessive: and without cause (<:arrier's File MW-A'l"J .A-15-06-UU-139 SOLi).
2. ,\s a cot1Sl.'<-IUence of the: violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimant K Carlton shall be made whole by exonerating him of all charges placed aJ.,tainst him, restoring him to service, paying him for all time lost, with seniority, qualifications, vacation and all other rights unimpaired."
FINDINC,S:
Sp(.-cial Board of Adjustment 1049, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds nnd holds that Employee an<l Carril•r nre employee and carrier within the 11w:rning nf the Railway J.abor Act, as amended: and, that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
Special l\o:ml t>f Adjustment No. 1049
Aware.I No. 255
herein; anc.l, that the parties to the c.lisputc ,vcrl· given c.lue notice of the hearing thereon anc.l <lid participate therein.
This Aware.I is based on the facts anc.l circumstances of this particular case anc.l shall not serve as a precedent in any other cases.
After thoroughly reviewing anc.l consic.lering the recorc.l anc.l the parties' presentations, the Hoare.I fine.ls that the claim shoulc.l be c.lisposec.l of as follows:
Claimant was summoned to an investigation on March 4, 2015 to determine his responsibility, if any, concerning:
I. Improper performance of c.luty anc.l failme to work safely in that while operating Company Section Truck No. 209605 at approximately 8:00 A.M. on February 12, 2015, on the right of way of the South End of the Forrestville Yarc.l in Rome, Ccorgia, you attcmpte<l to pc.'rform a 3-point turn and failcc.l to stop the ,·chide after losing sight of your grounc.l man, creating a c.langcrou11 work situation; and,
2. Improper pt·rformance of c.luty in that while operating Company Section Truck No. 20%05 nt approximately 8:00 A.I\{. on Fcbniary 12, 2015, on the right of way of the South End of the Forrestville Yard in Rome, ( ;eorgia upon re establishing line of sight with your grounc.l m.,n, you failed tu follow tht· stop siwials he pt'(J\'idcd anc.l impacted a prirnte vehick·. 'I11is resulted in damagl' to the private vehick·.
There is no c.loubt that Claimant faik't.l to stop the Section 'fnick as soon as he lost sight of his h>T<mnc.l man, he admitted as much at the in\'csti1,..P,ttion. Claimant's testimony l'clativc to the seconc.l chaq.,rc howe,·er, is nowhere near an ac.lmission. Claimant stated that he applied till' brakes as soon as he re-cstablishec.l sight of his foreman wa,•ing wildly and jumping up anc.l Jown. Nevcrthdess. Claimant was unable to stop sooll enough to avoid collision with a private vehicle. Hau he stoppec.l as soon as he lost eye contact with the grounc.l man the collision wm1ld have been avoided.
A rrnvating Claimant's undcni:iblc rule violation i,-. the fact that Claimant haJ only four (4) months earlier been rc-instatcc.l after a dismissal for another serious lapse of situational awareness that exposed his ccMvmkers to serious c.langer.
Claimant admitting to not stopping the truck when he lost sight of the ground man an<l further admitted it was his responsibility to <lo so. C iiven Claimant's admission of responsibility, we must conclude that the Carrier pron:d the charges against Claimant by substantial cvi<lena.·.
1-lmve,·er, unc.ler the particular circumstances of the case before us, we find the penalty of c.lismissal to be excessive. While it is tn1c that Claimant has been invoh·cc.l in two very serious situ:1tions m·e1· the past year that puts him in a bad light, the Hoare.I considers his service from 200(, through 2014 where he t.-arncd seniority as Foreman, Assistant Foreman and a Fla ng Foreman
Special Board of A<ljustment No. 1049
Awar<l No. 255
an<l is persua<led that this employct· is salrngcahlc. Fot that remmn, the Board <lt·tt·nnines that Claimant shall ht· reinstated to service, but ,vithm1t compensation for time out of st•n ·ice and he shall forfeit his seniority ns Foreman, Assistant l•orem:111 and Flagging Foreman.
Claim sustaine<l in 11ccordance with the findings . Carrier is directed to make this Award effectin• within thirty (30) Jays following the <late two (2) members of this Boanl affix their signaturt·s thereto.
D. M. Pascarella, Emplorcc Member D. I 1'crbr, Carrier Member
Dated at Chicago. lllinois,.fanuary 24, 2018