SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 105
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2291D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
DISPUTE: Claim of the Organization that:
1) The Carrier violated Rule 71(a) when it failed to
specify the exact rule in which the Claimant was
charged and this procedural flaw defeats the Carrier's
position and the Claimant should be exonerated of the
charge, compensated for all compensation loss due to
the discipline and the discipline expunged from the
Claimant's record.
FINDINGS:
On Tuesday, July 12, 1988, the Claimant R. Baker, a fuel truck
driver for Carrier, was attempting to turn the fuel truck assigned to
him around on one of Carrier's access roads and as a result the
vehicle went off the embankment and into a tree causing extensive
damage to this vehicle. The Claimant was notified to appear for a
trial in connection with the following charge:
Violation of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) Rules of Conduct, NRPC 2525 dated (September,
1985), Rule "B" which reads in part as follows:
"Safety is of first importance in the operation of the
railroad and therefore, is the most imporatant of the
employees' duties. Employees must understand and
comply with safety regulations and practices pertinent
to their class or craft of employment. In all
circumstances employees should take the safest course
of action.
The trial took place on August 25, 1988, and as a result Claimant
was assessed discipline of thirty working days suspension. The
organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf,
challenging his discipline.
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and we
- q'~t-ion
find that the Carrier has not met its burden of proof that the
Claimant acted in violation of Rule "B" on the date in question. It
is evident that an accident occurred when the Claimant drove his
vehicle off an embankment and into a tree causing extensive damage to
the vehicle. However, as this Board has ruled in the past, the mere
fact that an accident occurred does not mean that the Claimant was in
violation of a safety rule.
In fact, the record reveals that even the Carrier representatives
were not sure that there were any alternatives for the Claimant in the
situation-that he was in; also, it is not clear if there was any other
way for him to turn around the vehicle or if he was aware of the turn
around which was approximately 150 feet away. Finally, there is some
evidence that the brakes were not operating properly at the time of
the incident.
In matters of discipline the Carrier bears the burden of proof.
In this case, the Carrier has not met that burden and therefore the
claim must be sustained.
Award:
Claim sustained. Claimant is to be made whole for all lost wages
and other benefits lost a result of the suspension.
Chairman, Neutr Member
Carrier Members Employee Mem er
Date:
2(7dqD
2