SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award No.
15
Docket No.
15
PARTIES:. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: Chicago and North We=tern Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The dismissal's of Foreman J. A. Hameed for alleged
accident Involving a Little Giant Crane and a hyrail truck was without just and sufficient cause,
arbitrary and excessive. (Organization File T-2-3610;
Carrier File P1-83-42-D).
(2) The claimant` shall be reinstated with seniority and
all other rights unimpaired and compensated for all
wage loss suffered.
*The Claimant was dismissed from service on December
8, 1982 and returned to service on August 11, 1983 and
claim now before the Board is for all monetary loss between those two dates.
FINDINGS:
This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds
and holds that the employes and the Carrier involved, are respectively
employes and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as
amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein.
Claimant was a regularly assigned Track F'oremen,.performing
service on:-Carrier's Tara Sub-Division. He was in charge of a hyrail vehicle, which he parked on the main line a t MP 228 on
November 19, 1982, and proceeded to perform service outside of
his vehicle and along the right of way at that location. Section
laborer E. P. Thielen was working with claimant at the time.
While the claimant and the laborer were performing work at
Tara, a Little Giant Crane, shoving a gondola ahead, operated
around a curve south of claimant's location and headed north to
ward-where the claimant and laborer were working. When it became
apparent that the approaching crane was not going to stop, the
laborer working with claimant attempted to fiaa the vehicle down.
The claimant described his actions in -a subsequent investigation:
"Realized the Little Giant was still coming, wasn't
slowing down so I jumped in the ditch. Start waving.
I moved back closer to the track. Start waving trying
to get his attention in the mirror. My trackman,
Thielen said, 'He's not going be - he don't see us.
He's not going to be able to stop. I ran towards the
Sb a gay
Award No. 15
Docket No. 15
Page ?.
"opposite side of the track to met into the truck
to drive it forward. While coming across the track
to the other side-, I slipped on top of the ties, fell,
realized that I couldn°t get into the truck at that
time, so I rolled in the ditch. And at thet point
he had hit the section truck."
Following the collision between the gondola car being
shoved by the crane and the hy-rail truck in charge of claimant,
the operator of the crane, the flagman who was riding in the gondola
car, and the alaimRnt were notified to attend investigation on
November 26, 1982, on the charge:
"Your responsibility in connection rith accident at T9r8,
love, MP '228.0, on November 19, 1982, involving Little
Giant Crane and hy-rail truck."
The investigation was postponed and conducted on December-!,
1982. A copy of the transcript of the investi.zation has been made
a pert of the record. Following the investigation, claimant was dismipsed from service on Decem1_-i-.r 8, 1982. He was subsequently reinstated on August 2, 1982, without prejudice to his rtaht to Drogress the claim for pay for time lost.
In the course of questioning the claimant in the investigation, the following Rules of the Engineering Department were
ci~Pd:
"1062: EmDloyes in charge of hy-rail vehicles will
be responsible for their safe operation.
1065: Information received concerning movement of
trains does .not relieve the employe in charge
from the responsibility of arotecting a hyrail vehicle against trains, trpck csrs, on
track equipment and other hy-rail vehicles.
1067: Before movement of hy-rail vehicle is started
there must be a thorough understanding as to what
part each occupant must take should an emergency
arise necessitating prompt action.
107 : Hy-rail vehicles must not be left unattended
on track. They must be removed from the track
or protected by flag when not in use."
Claimant statdd that he xas familiar with the rules cited.
From our study of the transcript, the Board is convinced
that claimant w-.s in violation. of the rules cited, particularly
R»le 1077. The fact that others involved in the collision may have
SBA - 924 Award No. 15
Docket No. 15
Pare 3
had as much, or even perhaps more, responsibility as claimant,
may not be used as an excuse by claimant for his vt.olation of
the rules. The disctvline imposed on claimant, amounting to
at^nnt
eight months suspension, wss not arbitrary, capricious, or
in bad faith. The claim for pay for time lost by claimant while
out of the service will be denied.
A W A A D
Claim denied.
Crai.rman, Neutral Member
8
Carrier Member abor Me er.
DATED:
·~/ -9