BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:- Claim of the System Committee- of the
Brotherhood that:
1. The ten-day suspension of Rocco Q. Smith for
his alleged violation National Railroad Passenger
Corporation Rules of Conduct, Rule K was arbitrary,
capricious, and without just cause.
2. Claimant Smith's record shall be cleared of the
charge leveled against him and he shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Rocco Q. Smith was employed by the Carrier as a
maintenance of
way repairman foreman at the Penn Coach Yard,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
On July 23, 1990, the Carrier notified the Claimant to
appear for a formal
investigation in connection
with the
following charges:
Violation of the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation Rules of Conduct, Rule K . . .
Specification: To determine your responsibilities
in
connection with
$5,000.00 estimated damage to
the Philadelphia Equipment Shop overhead door on
July 5, 1990, and July 6, 1990, between the hours
of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
After one postponement, the hearing took place on August 28,
1990. On September 5, 1990, the Carrier notified the Claimant
that he had been found guilty of the charges and was being
assessed, discipline of a ten-day
suspension. The
Carrier also
Ca s
e- NIP-
56/q
9 8 to
warned the Claimant that if further misconduct of the same nature
occurred in the future, he would be dismissed from the Carrier's
service.
Thereafter, the Organization filed a claim on the Claimant's
behalf, challenging his suspension. The Carrier denied the
claim.
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 damaging
an overhead door while performing his duties on July 5, 1990.
Claimant exercised poor judgment when he directed a repairman
under his supervision to open a door by using a forklift after
the door had been taken out of service. The Claimant clearly
exercised poor judgment when he took it upon himself to pry open
the door. He admitted that he had never done that before in the
past.
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.
The Claimant's prior service record indicates that he
received a five-day suspension in 1981 and no other discipline in
over 16 years of service. Given the nature of the wrongdoing in
2
Case. I q& - 5,6,9 9 8 c'
this case, basically in exercising poor judgment, this Board must
find that a ten-day suspension for that wrongdoing was simply
unreasonable. Certainly a written warning to the Claimant
notifying him that he exercised poor judgment would have been
sufficient to resolve this problem. The Carrier acted
unreasonably when it issued a ten-day suspension. Therefore, the
claim will be sustained in part and the ten-day suspension will
be reduced to a written warning. Claimant shall be made whole
for lost pay for those ten days.
AWARD
Claim sustained in part. The ten-day suspension is hereby
reduced to a written warning. Claimant is to be made whole for
the lost pay.
Carrier Member
Dated:
9-
30- 9a.
>rganization Member