SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 924
Award No. 8b
Docket No. 96
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 ten (10) day deferred suspension and disqualification as
foreman assessed Gang Foreman D.E. Walp was without just and
sufficient cause and on the basis of an unproven charge.
[Organization File 2D-4653; Carrier File 81-84-210-D]
(2) Claimant D.E. Walp 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 June 25, 1984, Claimant was observed working without a shirt,
and an employee under Claimant's supervision was observed working
without a shirt, hard hat, and safety glasses. Claimant subsequently
was directed to attend a formal investigation of the charge:
Your failure to comply with General Safety Rules and Regulations
by not wearing a shirt while on duty Monday, June 25, 1984 and
by allowing the employees working under your supervision to work
unsafely by not complying with the General Safety Rules and
Regulations.
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 failing to
. . 5~,~-
9aV -awo SG
comply with the general safety rules and allowing employees under his
supervision to work unsafely.
Claimant admitted that he was working without a shirt on on the
date in question. The Claimant also admitted that he had people under
his supervision who were not complying with the safety rules.
Although Claimant contends that he did not remove his shirt because of
the heat but for some other reason, the rule is clear that the
employees are supposed to work fully clothed.
Once this Board determines that a carrier has properly found a
claimant guilty of the offense with which he is charged, we next turn
our attention to the type of discipline imposed. The Claimant
received a ten-day deferred suspension for his actions of not
complying with the rules; he also received disqualificaton as a foreman
because he allowed employees under his supervision to not follow the
rules. As a supervisor he is supposed to set an example for his
employees, demonstrating compliance with the rules. This Board does
not find that the action taken by the Carrier in imposing a ten-day
deferred suspension and disqualification on the Claimant was
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the claim will be
denied.
Award:
Claim denie .
n
`Chairman, Neutral Mem e
arrie Member Employee Membe.
Date:~g~
2