SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
Case No. 103
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2345D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
DISPUTE: Claim of the Organization that:
1) Carrier violated the time limits for rendering the decision,
assessing discipline and issuing a copy of trial transcript;
2) Mr. Bransfield should not have been removed from service
and that the discipline was harsh, arbitrary and capricious.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Walter Bransfield was employed as a M/W Repairman by
Carrier. Claimant was notified that he was removed from service as
of Thursday, November 17, 1988, and directed to attend an
investigation on December 1, 1988, in connection with the following
charge:
1) Violation of the Carrier's Rules of Conduct B and L. The
Claimant had supervised repair on a ballast regulator, and
he failed to take appropriate action to report or repair
a problem he knew existedwith a wheel on the regulator.
The trial was held on December 1, 1988, and as a result, Claimant
was notified by letter dated December 15, 1988, that he was found
guilty of 'violating Rule B and assessed the discipline of time held
out of service and permanent disqualification as a M/W repairman
foreman. On appeal, the Carrier reduced the permanent
disqualification assessed to a six month disqualification. The
Organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf,
challenging his discipline.
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the procedural issues raised
by the Organization and we find them to be without merit.
With respect to the substantive question, this Board has reviewed
7'81P-/03
'the record and testimony in this case and we find that there is
sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the
Claimant was guilty of failing to take the appropriate action to
report or repair a problem that he knew existed with a wheel on the
ballast regulator. This Board has thoroughly reviewed the arguments
of the organization, and despite the validity of some of the
Organization's arguments, we still believe that there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the finding of the Claimants
violations of Rules B and L.
Once.this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our
attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set
aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find the
carrier's action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
In the case at hand, the Claimant had previously received two
counselling letters relating to his work performance. Although he was
previously permanently disqualified from his foreman position, the
Carrier has subsequently reduced that permanent disqualification to a
six month disqualification. Given the nature of the wrongdoing and
the previous record of the Claimant, this Board cannot find that the
action taken by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
Chairman, Neutral Memb
Carrier Member mpl ee Member
Date:
'Z~22110
2