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 sixty-day suspension of Joseph A. Marier,
Jr. for his alleged violation of Amtrak Rules of
Conduct Rules G and F was arbitrary, capricious,
and without just cause.
2. Claimant Marier's record shall be cleared of
the charge leveled against him and he shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Joseph A. Marier, Jr. was employed by the Carrier
as a maintenance of way repairman at the Carrier's high speed
surfacing unit in Pennsylvania.
On December 18, 1990, the Carrier notified the Claimant to
appear for a formal investigation in connection with the
following charges:
Violation of Rule G . . . Rule
F
of Amtrak Rules of
Conduct . . .
Specification: On December 10, 1990, at
approximately 9:15 p.m. at M.P. 64.7, Bristol, PA,
you were observed by Project Engineer Bill Faust
and Supervisor Chris Sheppard to be acting in a
strange and unusual manner. Further observation
and questioning led them to believe that reasonable
cause D & A testing was necessary. This action was
based on both the scent of alcohol and the unusual
manner in which you acted.
The hearing took place on January 7, 1991. On January 22,
1991, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he had been
/q7- SSA
c)g/
found guilty of all charges and was being assessed discipline of a
sixty-day suspension, with time held out of service to apply
beginning December 10, 1990, and ending February 7, 1991.
I
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 violating
Rule G and Rule F. The record reveals that the Claimant smelled
like alcohol when he was at work. He was asked, and he admitted
to having beer for lunch that afternoon prior to coming on duty.
Claimant also admits having his knife out when he was speaking
with his Supervisor, although he denies holding the knife in a
threatening manner toward the Supervisor. Finally, it is clear
from the testimony in the transcript that the Claimant acted in a
boisterous and threatening manner toward his Supervisor during
the dispute that occurred on the date in question.
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 service record indicates that he had
2
Case I
9
07
- 5,19 Sgt,
previously received a 15-day suspension and a 24-day suspension.
Consequently, this Board cannot find that it was unreasonable for
the Carrier to issue him a 60-day suspension for the wrongdoing
in this case. Therefore, the claim will be denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Carrier Member
Dated:
PETERR /A
EYERS
Neutr 1 Member
Member