SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
CASE NO. 124
DOCKET N0. NEC-BMWE-SD-2435D
PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
TO
DISPUTE: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
DISPUTE: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood:
1. That the five-month disqualification as foreman of
Claimant Raymond Costanzo for alleged violation of Amtrak
Rules of Conduct Rule F on February 3, 1989, was
unwarranted.
2. That the Carrier violated the Agreement; the discipline
assessed the Claimant was harsh, arbitrary, capricious, and
discriminatory; the charges brought by the Carrier were
inaccurate; the trial was not fair and impartial; and the
Carrier did not prove the charges assessed Claimant.
3. That the Claimant's discipline be overturned; that he
be exonerated; and that he be made whole for any time lost
and any reduction in wages.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Raymond Costanzo'was employed by the Carrier as a
foreman at Bear, Delaware.
On February 8, 1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant of the
following charge:
Violation of Amtrak Rules of Conduct Rule F . . .
"All employees are required to conduct themselves in
a courteous and professional manner in dealing with
the public and other Amtrak employees. Boisterous
conduct or horseplay and profane or vulgar language
are prohibited.
Specification: On February 2, 1989, at the start of
your shift, you conducted yourself in an
unprofessional and irresponsible manner while
employed as the Foreman in the bridge crew at the
Bear Complex
After one postponement, the disciplinary hearing was held and
completed on March 2, 1989. On March 16, 1989, the Carrier notified
the Claimant that he was guilty of the charge brought against him and
.> BA - p8(o
Cfl~. - W
Y
was assessed discipline of a five-month disqualification as foreman.
On March 17, 1989, the Claimant filed an appeal of his discipline,
which appeal was denied on April 17, 1989. Thereafter, the organization
filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his discipline.
This Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by the
Organization relating to the hearing and we find them to be without merit.
With respect to the substantive question, 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
was guilty of violating Rule F of Amtrak Rules of Conduct.
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 this case the Claimant was disqualified from his position as
Foreman for a period of five months. Given his actions and the Carrier's
desire to have Foremen behave in a professional manner, this Board cannot
find that the action taken by the Carrier was unreasonable. Therefore,
the claim must be denied.
Award
~i
Claim denied.
/m'~ Y I
Peter R. Mey r
Neutral Memb r
0~ ~.
__
a ie Member
SZiL