SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD NO. 947
Claimant - M_ A. Sargent
Award No. 83
Case No. 83
PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO and
DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
Lines)
STATEMENT That the Carrier's decision to assess Claimant
OF CLAIM forty-five (45) 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 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 the morning of August 22, the Claimant approached his
Roadmaster, Mr. Frates, and explained he was not feeling well.
Mr. Frates suggested he see a doctor and indicated he would not
allow him to work since one of his symptoms was dizziness.. The
1
qq1-23
Claimant was also told it would be necessary to get a release
from the Company doctor before he would be permittd to return to
work. The Claimant did not mention that he had seen a doctor,
nor did he suggest his illness was the result of a work related
injury.
On September 1, 1988, the Roadmaster received a call from
Mr. Drake who informed him that he had just received a 2611 from
the Claimant. The date listed as the day of the alleged injury
was August 21, 1988, a Sunday. After an investigation, the
Roadmaster determined the Claimant had not been working on
August 21, 1988. Since, Mr. Sargent had not mentioned any work
related injury previously and because he was not working on
August 21, 1988, the Carrier charged him with several rule
violations and directed him to be present for a formal hearing
held on September 14, 1988 at the office of the Roadmaster. The
rules the Claimant allegedly violated were:
Rule 607 - CONDUCT: Employes must not be:
(3) Insubordinate;
(4) Dishonest:
Indifference to duty, or to the peformance
of duty, will not be condoned.
Rule 621, reading:
Rule 621. FURNISHING INFORMATION:
Employes must not withhold information, or
fail to give all the facts, regarding
irregularities, accidents, personal injuries
or rule violations.
Rule E, reading:
2
9U7-~'3
Rule E: Accidents, personal injuries,
defects in track, bridges or signals, or any
unusual condition which may affect the safe
and efficient operations of the railroad,
must be reported by the first means of
communication. Written report must follow
promptly when required.
The Board believes the Claimant is responsible for creating
a highly suspicious situation. Certainly if he had been to the
doctor on Sunday, August 21, 1988, it was his responsibility to
at least share that information with his Roadmaster when he
spoke with him the following day. His failure to do so, at
least casts suspicion on his alleged injury. Although he
testified he made several attempts to contact Mr. Frates between
August 21, 1988 and September 1, 1988, in reality he spoke with
him on August 22, 1988. It was then he should have informed the
Roadmaster of his contact with the doctor and the possibility of
a .job related injury. His failure to do so was an error on his
part.
While the Board does not believe the Carrier has
satisfactorily proven all the charges against the Claimant, it
does believe the Claimant was guilty of not furnishing
information in a timely manner. The penalty issued in this
case, forty-five (45) demerits was not excessive.
AWARD
The Claim is denied.
3
RH1-
83
f
Carol J a eri , Neutral
Submitted:
January 31, 1989
Denver, Colorado
4