SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award No.
/~9
Docket No. 127
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The discipline assessed Track Inspector J.F. Corrigan for his
alleged failure to properly protect against trains on January
25, 1987, was without just and sufficient cause and on the basis
of an unproven charge. (Organization File 3KB-4262 D; Carrier
File 81-87-861
(2) Track Inspector J.F. Corrigan shall be allowed the remedy
prescribed in Rule 19(d)."
FINDINGS:
This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and
holds that the employees and the Carrier involved are respectively
employees and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as
amended and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein.
On January 25, 1987, Claimant was assigned to inspect track on
the Belvidere Subdivision. While performing his duties near Huntley,
Illinois, Claimant saw headlights from a train on the same track, then
contacted the train crew to notify them that his truck was on the
track. The train crew stopped the train about one-half mile from
where Claimant set his truck off the track. Claimant subsequently was
directed to attend a formal investigation of the charge:
Your failure to properly protect against trains in the vicinity of
Huntley, Illinois on Sunday, January 25, 1987.
The investigation was held as scheduled, and a copy of the transcript
has been made a part of the record. We find that the investigation
was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
The Claimant was initially dismissed following the hearing. The
1
ga
dismissal was later reduced to a lengthy suspension that ended on
August 25, 1987, when the Carrier offered the Claimant an
unconditional reinstatement.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case,
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding that the Claimant was guilty of failing to properly
protect against trains while inspecting track on January 25, 1987.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our
attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set
aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find it to have
been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. In this case, although
the Claimant has over 12 years of service, he has compiled a
disciplinary record, including 5 suspensions and several letters of
reprimand. Therefore, this Board cannot find that it was unreasonable
for the Carrier to impose the suspension. The claim will be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
Neutral Member
artier Member Organization Membe
Date:
jV
~/y'~
2