SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award No. bu
. Docket No. 52
PARTIES: -Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
TO
DISPUTE:. .Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(1) The thirty (30) day suspension and one year's probation
as track foreman assessed J.G. Martorano for 'your
responsibility for your failure.to perform the
duties of Track Foreman, submission of a false daily
work report, failure to devote yourself exclusively to
the Company's service, and failure to wear the
required safety equipment while on duty and employed the
Track Department of the Chicago and North Western
Transportation Company in Itasca, Wisconsin on
the dates of August 25, 1983, August 26, 1983,
and September 2, 1983, information which reached
the Assistant Division Manager-Engineering on September
7, 1983' was without just and sufficient cause, on the -
basis of unproven charges and iii violation of
the Agreement. [Organization File 7D-4059; Carrier File
81-84-93-D1
(2) Foreman J.G. Martorano 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 August 25, 1983,,two members,of carrier's Police
Department were in Itasca,
Wisconsin on
a matter unconnected with
the instant claim. While there, the Police Department members
overheard an employee 'mention that he intended to purchase beer..
The Police Department members consequently performed an Employee
Work Performance Audit at Itasca on August 25, 26, and September
2, 1983. As a result of the audit, Claimant was notified to
report for investigation, to be conducted on September 15, 1983,
of the charge as set out in the Statement of Claim above. After
two postponements, the investigation was conducted on November
10, 1983. 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 Organization contends that Rule 19(a) provides that
prior to an investigatory hearing, an employee must "be notified
in writing of the precise charge against him." The charge in
SSA' 9.2-(/
,g-woe
~, ~_
this case was vague and equivocal; the Carrier therefore violated
Rule 19(a). Finally, the organization asserts that the Carrier
failed to prove the charges; the special agents' reports.were
based on assumptions, conjecture, and-falsehood.
The Carrier contends that the record evidence proves
that charges against the Claimant. The Carrier states that it
has a right to expect its employees to put in a full day's work;
in the past, it has disciplined employees who were found guilty
of similar offenses. The Carrier also states that the Claimant,as a foreman, must bear special responsibility in ensuring
compliance with safety rules; the Claimant therefore was properly
subject to greater discipline for
knowingly permitting
safety
violations. The Carrier.;maintains that the charges against. the
Claimant were sufficient to allow the Claimant to prepare a
defense. Finally, the Carrier contends that it was neither
arbitrary nor unreasonable in its assessment of discipline in
this case.,
This Board has reviewed the lengthy transcript and
other evidence in the record, and it finds that the charges
against the Claimant were specific enough to put the Claimant on
notice of the charges against him, as well as to enable him to
prepare a defense to those charges. Although the charges
included some language that may not have specifically related to
the action or inaction of each individual Claimant (such as the
failure to perform duties of track foreman could not have
related to the non-foreman claimants' involved in the same
incident), this Board finds that the charges did include specific
language concerning failure to wear required safety equipment
while on duty and failure to devote oneself exclusively to the
Carrier's service, which was enough to provide the requisite
notice to each Claimant as to the charges against him. Since
there was evidence of those latter types of wrongdoing by the
Claimant, this Board must find that the notice and charges were
sufficient and in.compliance with the rules. , '
A review of the transcript provides ample evidence that
the Claimant failed to wear the required safety equipment and
wasted an inordinate amount of time while on duty. The Carrier's
police kept lengthy time logs documenting the activities of the
Claimant,'and those logs, which were basically unrebutted, '
clearly demonstrated the Claimant's failure to devote himself to
the Carrier's service on the days in question, as well as his
failure to wear the required safety helmet. Based on this clear
and convincing and,unrebutted evidence, we must find that there
was a substantial basis°for the Carrier to take disciplinary
action against the Claimant.
Once this Board has determined that a carrier has a
substantial basis in the record to impose discipline, we must,
then turn our
attention to
the severity of the discipline
imposed. It is fundamental that we do not second-guess a carrier
as to the severity of discipline unless the action taken by a
carrier is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. In this case,
2
<A2-
5'a
U
-AYU
a c E
the Claimant received a thirty-day disciplinary suspension and a
one-year probation as track foreman for the-wrongdoing. This
Board has reviewed the nature of the offenses for which the
Claimant has been found, guilty, as well as the Claimant's previous
employment record, and based upon that analysis, we cannot find
that the action taken by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary,
or capricious. Hence, the discipline shall stand.
AWARD:
Claim denied.
Chairman,, Neutral Membe
a rider Member Labor Member
Date:
4////_O /A
3