BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Case No. 131
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Brotherhood that:
1. Claimant Mark S. Vendetti's thirty (30) working
day suspension, effective December 1, 1989, was
unwarranted.
2. The Carrier disciplined the Claimant solely
because there was an accident. The Claimant cannot
be held responsible for the actions of others.
3. The Carrier failed to prove the Claimant's
negligence and violation of Carrier rules.
4. The Claimant must be exonerated of the charges.
He must be made whole in terms of lost
compensation. This matter must be expunged from
his record.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Mark S. Vendetti was employed by the carrier as an
engineer.
On October 31, 1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant to
appear for a formal investigation in connection with the
following charge:
Violation of NRPC Rules of Conduct, Rule D.
Company Policies and Procedures . . .
Violation of NRPC Rules of Conduct, Rule B.
Safety . . .
Specification: On Thursday, October 26, 1989, you
failed to properly secure Burro Crane N58828, per
Amtrak Safety Rule and Instruction 4208, resulting
in personal injury to two employees at
approximately 2:45 p.m. on that date.
The hearing took place on November 17, 1989. On December 1,
1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he had been found
r
Cas
e~ 131 - S,3A q $ G
guilty of all charges and was assessed discipline of a thirty
(30) working day suspension. On December 8, 1989, the Claimant
app ailed his discipline.
The Carrier thereafter reaffirmed its decision on the
grounds that the Claimant was the operator of the Burro Crane in
question on the day of the incident, October 26, 1989, and was
responsible to properly tie down the equipment at the end of his
tour of duty. The Carrier asserts that the Claimant's failure to
do so resulted in serious injuries to fellow employees and led to
the Claimant's violation of the Carrier's Safety Rules and
Instructions. The Carrier indicated that all time held out of
service would apply to the Claimant's suspension.
The Organization filed a claim on the Claimant's behalf,
challenging his suspension. The Organization asserts that the
Claimant followed all Carrier procedures in securing the crane in
question and that the carrier erred in disciplining the Claimant
for the actions of others after he left the job site. The
organization contends, therefore, that the Carrier failed to
prove the Claimant's negligence. The parties being unable to
resolve the issues, this matter came before this Board.
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
Rules of Conduct D and B when he failed to properly secure the
Burro Crane on October 26, 1989. The Burro Crane subsequently
escaped and injured two employees. The record reveals that it
was clearly the Claimant's responsibility and he did not properly
2
Cas~
rar
- S~fl ~g c~
perform his duty.
__ 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 was guilty of violating
safety regulations. The records reveals that in 1982 he received
a 30-day suspension for a safety violation. Given the nature of
the offense in this case and the Claimant's previous record, this
Board cannot find that the Carrier's action in imposing a 30-day
suspension on the Claimant was unreasonable. Therefore, the
claim will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
\ i
PETER R. MRS
Neutral a er
Carrier Member ganization Member
Date:
9- F'- ~/ j
3