SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award No.
84
,Docket No. 88
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 sixty (60) day suspension assessed Trackman V.M. Rodriguez
was without just and sufficient cause and in violation of the
Agreement. [Organization File 3D-4878; Carrier File 81-85-46-D1
(2) Claimant Rodriguez 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 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.
On September 7, 1984, Claimant was observed working without
wearing his hard hat. Claimant subsequently was directed to attend a
formal investigation of the charge:
To determine your responsibility in connection with your failure
to wear a hard hat, while you were working with tie gang at East
Clinton, Illinois on September 7, 1984.
The investigation was held as scheduled, and 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.
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 Carrier's finding that the Claimant was guilty of the safety rule
violation for failure to wear his hard hat on the date in question.
The Claimant was well aware of the rule and was admittedly not wearing
his hard hat when he was viewed by his supervisors.
5jg,4 q~ y-
41--to
?V
The organization contends that the 60-day suspension given the
Claimant was excessive for this violation. This Board agrees.
Although there have been several other disciplines that the Claimant
has received over the course of his employment, none of them related
to a safety violation. Moreover, although the Claimant stated that he
was aware of the rule, he pointed out at the hearing that the chin
strap on his hard hat was broken; and he had a hard time keeping his
hat-on that day because it was very windy. Taking all of the
circumstances into consideration, we find that it was unreasonable,
arbitrary, and capricious for the Carrier to issue a 60-day suspension
for this violation. This Board finds that a 30-day suspension would
have been reasonable and hereby orders that the discipline be reduced
to a 30-day suspension and that the Claimant be reimbursed for all
back pay and other lost benefits after 30 days.
Award:
Claim sustained in part. The discipline is hereby reduced to a 30day suspension, and the Carrier is to make the Claimant whole for all
lost pay and other b77 fter 30 days.
m
1 ~ 1
Chairman, Neutral Member
r" J
rie member ~ -Employee Membe
Date: ~~
2