SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUST14ENT NO. 894
Case No. 1668 AwardNo. 1668
PARTIES Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
to -and-
DISPUTE: Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Appeal of Engineer Mark J. Chebatoris to have
his discipline of dismissal removed from his
record and to be restored to the service.
FINDINGS: On September 8, 1998, the Claimant was directed to attend
an investigation in connection with the following charges:
Charge #1 Your. sleeping while on duty at
approximately 8:15 AM on 9/6/98 at
CP Homer on #1 Main Track, while you
were assigned as engineer on Helper
401 assigned to train PIBA6, engine
6426.
Charge #2 You negated the alerter safety device
by having the automatic brake handle
in suppression position while you were
assigned as stated above.
Subsequent to the investigation held on September 21, 1998, the
Claimant was found gu°lty of the charges and he was dismisses from
the service on September 25, 1998. This is the matter, now before the
Board for final and binding arbitration.
The relevant facts shows that on September 6, 1998, the Claimant
was assigned as the Engineer on assiqment Helper 401 at Pittsburg, Pa.
When he reported for duty at 2:30 ALi, he was instructed to shove train
PIBA-6, east to Altoona, PA. According to -the testimony at the investigation on September 21, Road Foreman, Hank Trybus ("Trybus") heard the
Altoona Tower and the Engineer on Train PIBA-6 call the Claimant (who
was on the rear-end of Train PIBA-6). Because the Claimant did not
respond to either call, Trvbus drove his car to the train. He testified that the Claimant was asleep, that his engine was in power and
that the automatic brake was in suppression so to nullify the alerter.
The Board has carefully reviewed the transcript of the hearing
held in this matter, the submissions of. the parties and the supporting
Awo NO. i"'9
SBA No. 894 C-1668/A-1668
Page 2
evidence entered into the record. The Board finds that Trybus had a
reasonable basis to conclude that the Claimant was sleeping. N`.oreover,
the evidence is clear that he found the automatic brake valve in the
suppression position instead of the full service position.
However, we also conclude that the Claimant was suffering from a
medical condition that was not know to the Carrier's Medical Department
on September 6, 1998 when this incident occurred. The Board reaches
this conclusion primarily on the basis of three letters.' The first
letter, dated November 20, 1998, from Dr. Thomas Scott, in pertinent
part,--reads:
The patient has a long psychiatric history including
recently diagnosed bipolar disease which appears to
be the correct diagnosis, and now is suffering .from
spells or neurologic dysfunction as described above.
These are most likely either complex partial epilepsy
spells or psychogenic fugue states.
The second~letter, dated December 17, 1998, from Dr. Christopher
Pash, in pertinent part, reads:
Mr. Chebatoris has been seen in our office on multiple
occasions for medical problems including hypertension,
depression/anxiety and insomnia dating back to 1997..
The patient had been having mood swings and was started
on anti-anxiewy/anti-depressant medications. During '
the course of treatment of the succeeding year, the
patient had developed sleep disturbances characterized
by daytime hypersomnolence as well as sleep continuity
disturbance.
The third letter, from Dr. M. Patrick Gillespie, also dated
December 20, 1998, states in part:
I saw him for an evaluation on February 6, 1998. He
reported fluctuating depression and normal or even
elevated mood states which, with his history, sunnortect
the diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder..
While one might argue that the Claimant's medical condition was
unrelated to the brake valve handle being placed in the suppression
position, the Board gives considerable weight to the Claimant's
twenty-five years of operating with no previous operating rule violations. To set the brake valve in a position to nullify the safety
feature is inconsistent with his past record.
ALya
so . ll,Vd
SBA No. 894 C-1668/A-1668
Page 3
In summary, the Board finds that there is a reasonable basis to
conclude that the events leading to the Claimant's dismissal were
caused by his medical condition. Accordingly, the Claimant is restored to the service with all benefits and rights, but without back
pay subject, however, to a successful return-to-work physical and
other restrictions that the Carrier's Medical Department finds necessary after its examination.
A?A1A_RD
As specified above.
SR ~F~,ie&x*vv
S. R. Friedman Ec~buessig / ' E. W ! dcz
Carrier Member Neutral Member Organiz ion tuber
Dated: .
40