BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
Case No. 132
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Brotherhood that:
1. Claimant Michael J. Waters' ten (l0) calendar
day suspension, effective October 19, 1989, was
unwarranted.
2. The Carrier has failed to overcome the
procedural flaws in this case.
3. The hearing should. not have been held in the
Claimant's absence.
4. The Carrier failed to prove that the.Claimant
was aware of his injuries prior to the date he
reported them. The Carrier has not met the
required burden of proof.
5. The Claimant should be exonerated. His record
should be expunged concerning this matter.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Michael J. Waters was employed by the Carrier as a
trackman.
On August 21, 1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant to .
appear for a formal investigation in connection with the
following charge:
Violation of Rule 4000 of Amtrak's Safety Rules and
Instruction . . .
Violation of Rule C of Amtrak's Rules of
Conduct . . .
Specifications: In that you allegedly sustained a
personal injury on Monday, July 31, 1989, at
approximately 4:00 a.m. but did not report it to
any member of supervision until Thursday, August
10, 1989, at approximately 3:15 p.m.
~4se, I3o?
-S6A
9844
After two postponements, the hearing took place on October
5,1-989. The Claimant was not present, but was represented by
the organization. on October 19, 1989, the Carrier notified the
Claimant that he had been found guilty of all charges and was
being assessed discipline of a ten (10j calendar day suspension.
on November 13, 1989, the Claimant appealed his discipline.
The organization filed a claim on the Claimant's behalf on
December 8, 1989, challenging his suspension. The organization
claims that the Carrier violated Rule 68 of the collective
bargaining agreement and that the Carrier failed to prove that
the Claimant was aware of his injury before he properly reported
it to his supervision and, thus, did not violate any Carrier
rules. The Carrier thereafter denied the appeal on the grounds
that the Claimant failed to report his injury immediately on the
day in question, even though the Claimant's supervisor inquired
as to whether or not the Claimant sustained an injury on July 31,
1989. The carrier claims that for the Claimant to have reported
his injury a week after the incident is in clear violation of its
rules. 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
Rule 4000 of the Amtrak Safety Rules and a violation of Rule C
when he sustained a personal injury on July 31, 1989 and did not
report it for nearly 10 days. Although the Claimant argues that
2
Case. !3a
- saA
9sco
he did not know that it was a serious enough injury, he should
have reported any injury no matter how small.
tonce 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 10=day
suspension for his wrongdoing. Given the nature of this offense,
a 10-day suspension is a rather lenient discipline. .This Board
cannot find that the Carrier acted unreasonably. Therefore, the
claim will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
l
v
PETER R YERS
Neutra Me Me
a
Carrier Membe Organization Member
Date: