SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
Case No. 111
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2379D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
DISPUTE: Claim of the Organization that:
1) The Carrier failed in its burden of proof to show the
claimant violated either of the rules charged;
2) The claimant should be exonerated of the charge, compensated
for all compensation loss due to his discipline and the
discipline be expunged from his record.
FINDINGS
Claimant J. Po11i-o was employed as a track foreman by Carrier.
By Notice of Investigation dated December 12, 1988, Claimant was
charged with the following:
On Thursday, December 8, 1988, at approximately 8:00 a.m.,
you advised the Carrier that you had actually sustained an
injury on Amtrak property while disembarking from the dining
car steps in the tie gang camp facility located at Durante
Yard.
Whereas, to the contrary, you had previously advised ARASA
Supervisor Mr. Joseph Traina, through a telephone
conversation, on Wednesday, December 7, 1988, at
approximately 6:00 p.m., that you were in fact suffering
from pain and other complications to your back from a nonjob related injury.
The trial was held on February 9, 1989, and as a result Claimant was
dismissed in all capacities. On appeal, the Carrier reduced the
discipline from dismissal to suspension equal to the time held out of
service. 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 find that there is sufficient evidence in the record
to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of dishonesty when
he advised the Carrier that he had sustained-an-on-the-job injury on
Amtrak property on December 8, 1988. The record clearly reveals that
he had previously advised a supervisor that he was suffering pain and
complications from a non-job related injury.
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 this case, the Carrier has already reduced the discipline from
dismissal to a suspension equal to the time held out of service. This
Board cannot find any reason to change the Carrier's action in this
case. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
Chairman, Neutr l 4em er
Carrier Member
a
T
Employee Member
Date: -
2
2