SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
CASE N0. 122
DOCKET N0. NEC-BMWE-SD-2448D
PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
TO
DISPUTE: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
DISPUTE: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood:
1. The ten-calendar day suspension of Claimant Errol
Gardner for alleged violation of N.R.P.C. (Amtrak) Rules of
Conduct Rule C on January 10, 1989, was unwarranted.
2. The Carrier failed in its burden of proof to show the
Claimant violated the rule charged; the Carrier's case is
fatally flawed, with numerous agreement violations.
3. The Claimant should be exonerated of the charge,
compensated for all compensation loss due to the discipline,
and the discipline removed from the Claimant's record.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Errol Gardner was employed by the Carrier as a trackman
at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
On January 26, 1989, the Claimant was notified by the Carrier of
the following charge:
Violation of N.R.P.C. (Amtrak) Rules of Conduct Rule
C
Specification No. 1: Wherein, you allegedly
sustained a personal injury to yourself on Tuesday,
January 10, 1989, while attending to your personal
hygiene in Amtrak Company living quarters, on Amtrak
Company property (QX Yard - Philadelphia, PA) and
failed to report said injury to your supervisor
until Tuesday, January 17, 1989.
After one postponement, the disciplinary investigation was held on
February 28, 1989. On March 15, 1989, the Carrier notified the
Claimant that he was found guilty of the charge brought against him
and was assessed discipline of a ten-calendar day suspension. On
March 17, 1989, the Claimant filed an appeal of his suspension, which
appeal was denied by the Carrier on April 28, 1989. The organization
yA- 98~
thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his
suspension.
This Board has 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 failed to promptly report his injury in
violation of the Amtrak Rule of Conduct C. Therefore, the Carrier had
sufficient reason to impose discipline.
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 its action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
In the case at hand, the Claimant received a ten day suspension
for his wrongdoing. The record reveals that the Claimant had
previously received a 27 day suspension for failure to comply with
instructions. This Board cannot find that the discipline issued by
the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious in this case.
Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award
Claim denied.
Peter . M y rs
Neutral Me er
Carrier Member rganiza
io
Member
/s - /- 7
o
2