a



PARTIES Brotherhood of-Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
 Lines)
 STATFT:;JNT That the Carrier's decision to suspend
 OF CLAIM Claimant for a period of fifteen (15) working
 days 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 that 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. ._

        On October 2, 1990, the Claimant received notice-to'appear for a formal Investigation on October_12,1990 to determine `if he had violated Rule 2.13.8, of the Chief Engineers_,Ins:truction


                                  1

                                            9V7-its


for the Maintenance of Way and Structures and Engineering Department Employees, form S-2292-E, effective October, 1989, which reads:

      Rule 2.13.8: When Equipment is left unattended:


(a) Motor must be stopped (c) Parking or handbrake must be securely set. (h) On grades, wheels must be securely blocked and chained to rail. (j) Work equipment with booms, plows, mowers, buckets and other attachments that are capable of being raised or lowered hydraulically or meanically, must be left with attachments lowered or safely secured. The hearing was eventually held on October 12, 1990. Following same, the Carrier reviewed the evidence, found it convincing and suspended the Claimant for fifteen (15) days. On the day of the incident, the Claimant went on duty at 7:00 a.m. at O'Brien and off duty at 3:00 p.m. at Lakehead. His assignment was to operate a Compactor. At one point, near MP 296 he stopped the machine using the travel brake. He disembarked to go to the bathroom. At this time, he also walked back to check on the Ballast Regulator working the track behind. When he turned back toward his machine, he realized the brakes had not held and his machine was traveling, unoccupied, down the track. He attempted to catch-up with it by foot. When he realized he could not, he returned to the Ballast Regulator and the Operator took him first to the third machineworkingin the area. From that machine they called the Dispatcher to alert him to the runaway Compactor. They then chased the machine.

                            2

                                                  gv-7 -ii5'


f Eventually, the machine was tracked down. It sufferred
 a dent, but otherwise was still .operational. No other damage
 was done.
 As part of the explanation for the runaway, the Claimant
 urges that the brakes were not working properly. He did not
 make this claim on the day of the accident. It is impossible to
 determine whether his claim has any merit, since the brakes were
 not checked on that day. This was an oversight by the
 supervisor in charge of the investigation. The check should
 have been part of a thorough investigation to determine the
 reason for the accident, as well as, determining the culpability
 of the Claimant.
 Unfortunately, most of us are blessed with hindsight, but,
 little foresight. The Claimant initially thought his brake
 application was enough to hold the machine in place. Obviously
 it had stopped. However, his analysis of the situation was
 incomplete. If nothing else, he should have checked the air
 pressure to be sure the brake was holding before he walked away
 from the machine.
 In view of all of these facts, the question before this
 Board is whether or not the Claimant warrants discipline. If he
 does, what discipline is appropriate in view of all factors.
 The Claimant worked for the Carrier for 14._5 years at the
 time of the incident. His employment record indicates he was
 involved in a truck accident. Other thanthat, he has what
 appears to be an exemplary record -The only-penalty issued for
 the truck accident was thirty (30)demerits. If progressive
 3

                                        9~f7-I ~.s


discipline is taken into account here, along with other matters previously discussed, it seems to this Board, a fifteen (15) day suspension is excessive.

                          AWARD


The claim is sustained in part; the fifteen (15) day suspension is to be changed to a five (5) day suspension. The Claimant is to be reimbursed the difference between what he lost during his fifteen (15) day suspension and what he would have lost if he had been issued the five (5 )day suspension.

                            Car ~Zamperini

                            Impartial Arbitrator


Submitted:

 June 14, 1990 Denver, Colorado

 4