a
SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD NO. 947
Claimant - S. R. Cohen
` Award No. 109
Case No. 109
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO and
DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
Lines)
STA=-.'LTIT That the Carrier's decision to assess Claimant
OF CLAN thirty (30) demerits was excessive, unduly
harsh and in abuse of discretion and in
violation of the terms and provisions of the
current Collective Bargaining Agreement.
That because of the Carrier's failure to prove
and support the charges by introduction of
substantial bona fide evidence, that Carrier
now be required to reinstate and compensate
Claimant for any and all loss of earnings
suffered, and tht the charges be removed from
his record.
FINDINGS
Upon reviewing the record, as submitted, I find that the
Parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meaning of
the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Special Board
of Adjustment is duly constituted and has jurisdiction of the
Parties and the subject matter; with this arbitrator being sole
signatory.
The Carrier notified the Claimant on July 9, 1990, that the
evidence adduced at a formal investigation held at Eugene,
Oregon on June 28, 1990 established his responsibility in
1
gtl 7-io9
violating Rule I and Rule 607, on May 11, 1990. The charges
resulted from an incident whereby the Claimant, who was working
as a Compressor Operator, had gathered and then placed several
tamping guns against a compressor which was still operational.
As a result of the vibrations of the machine, one of the tamping
guns weighing approximately 40-50 pounds, slid and fell on the
Claimant's foot, causing an injury. The rules the Claimant was
charged with violating read as follows:
Rule I: Employees must exercise care to
prevent injury to themselves or others.
They must be alert and attentive at all
times when performing their duties and plan
their work to avoid injury.
Rule 607: CONDUCT: Employees must not be:
(1) Careless of the safety of
themselves or others:
le. (2) Negligent:
Any act of hostility, misconduct or
willful disregard or negligence affecting
the interests of the Company is suffiicient
cause for dismissal and must be reported.
Indifference to duty, or to the
performance of duty, will not be condoned.
The Claimant was issued thirty (30) demerits.
The Claimant was responsible for collecting the tamping
guns being used not only by himself, but other employes. The
other part of his duties included shutting down the compressor.
Therefore he was well aware the machine was still running when
he leaned the guns against it. The Claimant should have been
aware of how unstable the guns would be against a vibrating
compressor, particularly considering their weight. He has to
bear the responsibility for lacking the necessary foresight in
2
e
gy7-~o9
'` handling the equipment.
The actions of the Claimant do not constitute the most
serious of rule violations. None-the-less, the lack of
foresight demonstrated could have left the Employe with a
serious injury. Since his Employment Record shows he has been
counseled previously about Rule 607, the penalty issued by the
Carrier in this case is appropriate.
AWARD
The Claim is denied.
Carol J. Zamperini
Impartial Neutral
Submitted:
February 26, 1991.
3