f
BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 924
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN TRANSPORTATION CO.
Case No. 216
AWlgd
/94
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Brotherhood that:
1. The disqualification of Foreman A. G. Gaines as a foreman
and assistant foreman for improperly dismounting a ballast
regulator was without just and sufficient cause, unsupported
and capricious (Organization File 9KB-485 1D; Carrier File
81-92-36).
2. Claimant A. G. Gaines shall now have his seniority restored
as a foreman and assistant foreman, compensated for all wage
loss suffered and have the discipline removed from his record.
Claimant Gaines, a surfacing gang foreman, was observed by Roadmaster Ray on
October 5, 1991, allegedly dismounting incorrectly from a ballast regulator.
Consequently, the Claimant was notified to attend a hearing on the charge of not
dismounting a ballast regulator properly.
At the hearing, the roadmaster testified that the Claimant had "jumped off the
regulator ....facing with his back to the machine and jumped off the wing ....to the ballast
section". Based on Roadmaster Ray's testimony of his observations, the Carrier
determined that this action by the Claimant was a violation of its Safety Rule 1000(B)
which states:
When getting on or off engines, cars or equipment, face ladders, maintain
secure handhold and keep hands free of tools, radios, grips or other material.
Therefore, the Carrier found the Claimant responsible for his actions and disqualified
him as a foreman and assistant foreman. The Organization took exception to the
discipline imposed and filed the instant claim on behalf of the Claimant.
The parties being unable to resolve the issue, this matter now comes before this
Board.
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 failed to
follow the required procedures when he dismounted the ballast regulator on October 5,
1991. Claimant admitted at the hearing that he "dismounted it with my back to the
machine".
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to
support the guilty fording, we next must turn our attention to the type of discipline
imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we ford
its action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
There is no question that a foreman must set an example for the other employees
working under him and that the Carrier had a right to disqualify the Claimant from his
position as foreman. However, this Claimant has worked for the Carrier for 12 years, and
this Board finds that the Carrier went too far in also permanently terminating the
2
SSA 9 x.[ _ Awol 1
Claimant's assistant foreman rights. Hopefully, as an assistant foreman, Claimant will
learn the procedures and responsibilities that go along with his job and eventually work
himself into a more responsible position.
AWARD
Claim sustained in part. The Carrier had just cause to terminate the Claimant's
foreman rights, but did not have just cause to permanently terminate the Claimant's
assistant foreman rights. Effective immediately, Claimant's assistant foreman rights shall
be reinstated.
C)4yjm -)~ -
CmMembei
D ~D.
PETER .D YERS
Neutr ember
4Or '
zation Member,
DATED: