SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924

Award No. Docket No. 83 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 disqualification from yard cleaner operator of M. Martinez was without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of an unproven charge. [Organization File 3D-4698; Carrier File 81-85-71

(2) Claimant M. Martinez shall have his seniority date as yard
cleaner operator reinstated and shall be compensated for
all wage loss suffered by Carrier's improper
disqualification."
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.
As of June 1, 1984, Claimant was assigned to operate a yard
cleaner. On June 25, 1984, during his probationary period, Claimant
was notified that he was disqualified as operator of the yard
cleaner. Claimant subsequently requested a hearing, which was held
on July 18, 1984. A copy of the transcript has been made a part of
the record. We find that the hearing was conducted in a fair and
impartial manner.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in
this case, and we find that there is no evidence in the record
that the disqualification of the Claimant during his probationary
period was arbitrary or capricious. Hence, this claim must be

Sa,~ 9a y - -ewo ~~

denied.
It is well settled that the burden of proof is on the employee to demonstrate that his disqualification during a probationary period is arbitrary or capricious in order to have it set aside. The record in this case makes it clear that the Claimant was not properly maintaining the Yard Cleaner Machine. The Claimant was not lubricating it or replacing the brushes as needed or keeping the oil at the appropriate level. Moreover, about a week before the Claimant's disqualification, he was warned by a supervisor that he must improve his performance or face disqualification. He did not improve, and he was subsequently disqualified. There is no evidence that the action taken by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

AWARD:
I
Claim denied;
uL
Ch 'rman, Ne tral Membe
er M mber Neutral Member
Date : Q G' o lh'b' 6

2