SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924 -
' Award-'No. 41
- Docket--Nb. 43 .
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO s -
DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM- "Claim of the System Committee of the Brother=
hood that:
(1) The thirty (30) day actual suspension assessed Trackman
Melvin Mayfleld for his alleged responsibility in sus
taining-a personal Injury was without just and sufficient
cause and on the basis pf~an unproven charge. (Organization
_ .File
3D%~#062; Carrier File 81-84-39-D) .
(?_) Trackman Melvin Mayfield 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 employes and the carrier involved, areresmectively employes and Carrierwithin the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended; and that the Soard-has jurisdiction
over the dispute herein.
Claimant, with seniority from May 22, 1979., was assigned
as a trackman at Carrier's West Chicago Yard, on Carrier's Illinois
Division. On September-2, 1983, while on his way to the work site
at the starting time of his assignment, claimant contends that he
was struck in the foot by a piece of rail which fell from its
storage place as he walked by. -
On September 7, 1983, claimant was instructed to attend
a formal investigation on the charxea
"Your rasponsibil2ty for .your aetions which resulted in.
personal injury to yourself along the.material track at
the West Chicago Yard on Frtday, "September 2, 1983."
The invPstixation was postponed and conducted on September
16, 1983. A copy
of
the transcript.of the investigation has been
made a part of the record. Following the investigation, claimant
was assessed discipline of thirty days actual suspension, which
activated a ten-day deferred suspension.
In the investigation it was developed that the rail storage
vile involved consisted of a number of pieces of rail resting to@e
down in a single layer'uDOn some switch ties.
Award No. 41
Docket No. 43
Ettdence was presented indicating that claimant sustained
an injury to his foot when he
attempted to
walk over the pile of
rail enroute to his assignment. There was also evidence presented
that a clear path to the work site was available some fifteen
feet from the rail pile. Claimant's contention that he was simply
walking beside the rail pile and a rail
fell
onto his foot lacks
'plausibility.
General Rule "M" of Chrrier's General Regulations and
Safety Rules Drovides:
"'Employes must ezercip,care to prevent injury to
themselves or others.
Based upon the evidence before us, the Hoard -does not
find the discipline imposed 'to be arbitrary, capricious or in
bad faith.
A W A A D
Claim den-led.
Chairman, Neutral Member
i
Crier-Member Labor Mem~
V
'~ ~1 G'
%y~
Dhted:
r'~ia.~..