BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
Case No. 143
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
The two-week suspension and six-month
foreman/operator disqualification assessed
Claimants William Roche (foreman) and Jorge Negrete
(machine operator) was unwarranted.
FINDINGS:
Claimant William Roche was employed by the Carrier as a
foreman at its Chicago District/Midwest Division; Claimant Jorge
Negrete was employed by the Carrier as a machine operator at the
same location.
On July 31, 1990, the Carrier notified the Claimants to
appear for a formal investigation in connection with the
following charges, Claimant Roche being the foreman and pilot of
speed swing and Claimant Negrete being the operator of speed
swing:
Charge I. Alleged failure to comply with the A14T1, NORAC Operating Rules for Chicago Terminal
Signals, Rule C-292, figure F. STOP. Indication.
Charge II. Alleged failure to comply with the
AMT-1, NORAC Operating Rules, Rule B . . .
Charge III. Alleged failure to comply with AMT-1,
NORAC Operating Rules for Movement of Track Cars,
Rule 801 . . .
Specification: In that on July 29, 1990, at
. 04sG !443 -5x64
4784,
approximately 11:10 a.m., while performing your
duties as Foreman and Pilot of Speed Swing and
Operator of Speed Swing, Unit N-47921, you
allegedly passed the L-52 Signal displaying a STOP,
indication on main Track #3, located at the
Harrison Street Interlocking. In passing the L-52
Signal, in the STOP position you piloted/operated
your ontrack vehicle, Speed Swing, Unit N-47921,
into a collision path with Amtrak's Train #366
which was departing from Station Track #16 to Main
Track #2.
The hearing took place on August 6, 1990. On August 8,
1990, the Carrier notified the Claimants that they had been found
guilty of the charges against them and were being assessed
discipline of a two-week suspension (time out of service - July
30 through August 14, 1990) and one year disqualification from
their respective positions. The Claimants were also instructed
to return to work on August 15, 1990.
The organization thereafter filed an appeal on behalf of the
Claimants; after which, the Carrier agreed to modify the
discipline by reducing the disqualification periods of the
Claimants from one year to six months, to expire on January 29,
1991.
Said decision of the Carrier being unsatisfactory to the
organization and the parties being unable to resolve the issues,
this matter came before this Board.
This Board has thoroughly reviewed the evidence and
testimony in this case and we find there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support the finding that the Claimants were
guilty of failing to comply with various operating rules on July
29, 1990. The record in this case makes it clear that the
Claimants were using a speed swing to bring some materials into
2
e4s.
!qj -S6A 984
the Chicago Union Station and they disregarded a STOP sign and
directed their vehicle into a collision path with another train.
This Board is convinced by the testimony of the witnesses
including the expert witness who testified that there is no way
that the signal could have shown anything but STOP.
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.
This Board takes note that both of the Claimants in this
case had no prior disciplinary record. However, the record also
reveals that the Carrier has already taken the previous records
into consideration and reduced the disqualification periods from
one year to six months. This Board does not see any need based
on the record before us to reduce the discipline any further.
Therefore, the claim will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
PET R. ~EYERS
Ne rai M)mber
Carrier Member
Dated: 3- 3/- 9~
Member