BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
Case No. 140
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
1. The dismissal of Truck Driver J. Williams for
alleged violation of Amtrak's General Rules of
Conduct D, F, and K on August 1, 1990, was harsh,
arbitrary, capricious, without just cause and on
the basis of unproven charges (System File
NEC-BMWE-SD-2736D).
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated in the
carrier's service with seniority and all other
rights unimpaired, he shall have his record cleared
of the charges leveled against him and of the
discipline imposed upon him, and he shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant James Williams was employed by the Carrier as a
truck driver headquartered at Perryville, Maryland.
On August 8, 1990, the Carrier notified the Claimant to
appear for a formal investigation in connection with the
following charges:
Violation of (NRPC 2525)(9/85) Amtrak's General
Rules of Conduct, Rule D . . .
Violation of (NRPC 2525)(9/85) Amtrak's General
Rules of Conduct, Rule F . . .
Violation of (NRPC 2525)(9/85) Amtrak's General
Rules of Conduct, Rule K . . .
Specification No. 1: on Wednesday, August 1st,
. . . Case-
14a - S
t3A 9 8j.
1990 at approximately 1:30 P.M. Amtrak Vehicle No.
AB-46196 was set up for service and repairs at
Perryville, Maryland; however, this vehicle was
subsequently unavailable to Mr. Steffy at the
designated headquarters of the H.S.S. Gang.
At approximately 6:30 p.m. after having waited all
day, Mr. Steffy observed the vehicle being returned
to the M. W. Staging Base, Perryville, Maryland
which was being driven by Mr. James Williams.
After two postponements, the hearing took place on September
28, 1990. On October 12, 1990, the Carrier notified the Claimant
that he had been found guilty of all charges and was being
assessed discipline of dismissal in all capacities.
Thereafter, the Organization filed a claim on behalf of the
Claimant, challenging his dismissal. The Carrier denied the
claim.
The parties being unable to resolve the issues, this matter
came before this Board.
This Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by
the Organization and we find them to be without merit. We have
reviewed the transcript of the hearing and we find that the
Claimant received a fair and impartial investigation.
With respect to the merits of the charge, 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 misappropriating Company property
when he used a Company vehicle without permission on August 1,
1990. The record reveals that the Claimant did not receive
permission from any supervisor to take the vehicle with him on
the date in question. Even in the Claimant's testimony, he does
2
C'4s~ W o
- s
B~ 9g~
not state that he was granted permission to remove the vehicle.
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 Carriers imposition of discipline unless we
find its action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious.
In the case at hand, although the Claimant had lengthy
seniority with the Carrier, the record reveals that he had been
suspended on numerous occasions, some of those occasions
involving the unauthorized use of a Company vehicle. The record
reveals 69 days of suspension, 60 of which occurred between 1988
and 1990. Given that background and the seriousness of the
offense in this case, this Board cannot find that the action
taken by the Carrier in terminating the employment of the
Claimant was without just cause. Therefore, the claim will be
denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
J
PETER R. ^YEFS
Neutral Me b r
Carrier Member r anization Member
Dated:
3