SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 104
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2363D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
DISPUTE: Claim-of-the Organization that:
The discipline be removed from the Claimant's record
and that he be compensated for all time lost resulting
from such disciplinary action.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Herbert Smart was employed as a B & B Foreman at the
30th Street Station, Philadelphia, PA. The Claimant was notified to
attend a trial in connection with the following- charge:
Violation of Rule F-5, "Employees must not sleep on duty,
and must not be so inattentive to their jobs as to appear
to be sleeping," and Rule 0, "Employees must attend to their
duties during assigned working hours."
The trial was held on December 8, 1988, and Claimant was found
guilty of: assuming the attitude of sleep on Wednesday, August 24,
1988, at approximately 11:00 a.m. in the "Atlantic City Office" of
GETC 30th Street Station, Philadelphia, PA and assessed discipline of
ten calendar days suspension. The organization thereafter filed a
claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his discipline.
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the evidence and testimony in
this case, and we hereby find that there is sufficient evidence in the
record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of
violating Rule F-5 and 0 of the Carrier's Rules of Conduct when he was
observed on August 24, 1988, assuming the attitude of sleep. Although
the Claimant states that when he was on the floor he was sitting and
not on his back, the record still reveals that his eyes were closed
R 8~- Joy
and he wasn't moving.
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.
Sleeping on the job has often led to discharge at this Carrier and
other Carriers around the country. The Carrier, in this case, has
exercised leniency by only issuing the Claimant a ten day suspension.
This Board cannot find that the action taken by the Carrier in this
case was unreasonable. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
i.
Chairman, Neutra ; Member
i
Carrier
Membei~ Employee Member
Date: 2~ 2'LI
10
2