SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 279
Award No. 546
File 910328
Docket No. 546
Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
to and
Dispute Union Pacific Railroad Company
(Former Missouri Pacific Railroad Company)
Statement
of Claim: (1) Carrier violated the Agreement, especially Rule 12,
when H. L. Dixon was disqualified on the Camron tamper on
January 23, 1991 and formally disqualified on March 11,
1991.
(2) Claim on behalf of Mr. Dixon for difference in pay
beginning January 24, 1991.
Findings: The Board has jurisdiction by reason of the parties
Agreement establishing this Board for that purpose.
The Claimant, a Machine Operator since 1979, H. L.
Dixon, with 12 years seniority, was disqualified about 2:00
PM on January 23, 1991 effective on the completion of his
work day as an Operator of the "Camron Tamper."
A formal investigation in connection therewith was held
on February 7, 1991 on the charge "due to your inability to
become qualified since attaining that position." The
Carrier concluded from the evidence adduced thereat that the
Claimant Machine Operator after some 2 1/2 months on the
Camron Tamper was not qualified to operate same and
therefore was disqualified therefrom on March 11, 1991.
The Claimant was accorded the due process to which
entitled under his discipline rule.
There was insufficient evidence adduced to support the
Carrier's conclusion of culpability. The testimony of the
Work Equipment Foreman, L. B. Manual and particularly that
of Surfacing Gang Foreman Bowman appears to be more
contrived than being factual.
I find nothing on the record to support the Union's
allegation that because the Claimant was a Union
Representative (Local Chairman) that he was disqualified.
Our Award No. 267 reflects the Board's belief that the
Claimant or his Representative must show that the Carrier
acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in order to support a
decisional reversal. The majority believes that they did so
in this case.
As pointed out, the Tamping machine, in particular ATS78, can surface cross level or track surface and line it.
The record shows that Manager Track Maintenance (MTM) R. G.
Lively requested that the Claimant encourage Surfacing Gang
Foreman M. Bowman to use the laser. The record shows that
Bowman did not care to use the laser as much as he should
have. Foreman Bowman was inside the Tamper ATS-73 setting
figures whenever he deemed it necessary. Yet he appeared
too willing to place all of the blame on the Claimant
Machine Operator Dixon.
The record further reflected that Bowman dissembled
more often than not in answering questions by the Claimant.
Exhibits reflect that the Claimant had previously
worked on and operated the Camron Tamper (ATS-73) since 1990
and that at least three other Track Foremen thought he was
competent thereon. The alleged Carrier provided training
period of several weeks and/or several months was just not
borne out by the record. All the alleged attention and help
given on assistance and training was not borne out by this
record.
The record shows that the Claimant was not used in the
same manner as were other Machine Operators. The Machine
Operator, Wilson Pryor, used to replace the Claimant was
junior to him and was the previous Machine Operator. That
fact, in certain circumstances, is certainly not an unusual
cause for someone to become suspicious. The machine
involved had been indicated if not proven, to be not
mechanically correct. That fact caused the suspicion to
grow stronger. Irrespective thereof the record was not such
as to clearly support the Carrier's decision for
disqualification.
Award: Claim sustained.
Order: Carrier is directed to make this Award effective within
thirty (30) days of date of issuance shown below.
. .uG
. Hammons, Jr., m yee Member K t y .Alexander, Carrier Member
Arthur T. Van Wart, Chairman
and Neutral Member
Issued
November 28, 1992.