BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 986
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
and
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
(AMTRAK - Northeast Corridor)
Case No. 175
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Brotherhood that:
1. The dismissal of Track Foreman L. Casella for alleged
violation of Rules F(1), F(2), and F(3) of Amtrak Rules
of Conduct on December 13/14, 1993, was arbitrary,
capricious, harsh, unjust, and on the basis of unproven
charges (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-3325D).
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated to service with seniority
and all other rights unimpaired, his record shall be cleared
of the charges leveled against him, and he shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant Louis T. Casella was employed by the Carrier as a track foreman at the
Carrier's New York Penn Station.
On December 20, 1993, the Carrier notified the Claimant to appear for a formal
investigation into the charges that he violated Rules F(1), F(2), and F(3) of Amtrak Rules
of Conduct when he harassed, used vulgar language, and threatened Kristina Cassidy, the
Block Operator on duty at the Carrier's "R"Tower in Sunnyside Yard, during the period
from approximately 10:30 p.m. on Monday, December 13, 1993, to approximately 6:30
a.m. on Tuesday, December 14, 1993.
After two postponements, the hearing took place on February 22, 1994. On March
. q~c~-r?s
7, 1994, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he had been found guilty of all charges
brought forth against him and was being dismissed from the service of the Carrier
effective that date.
The Organization filed an appeal on behalf of the Claimant, which was denied by
the Carrier.
The parties not being able to resolve the issue, this matter comes 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 Carrier Rules of Conduct F(1), F(2), and F(3). The record is clear that
the Claimant harassed, threatened, and intimidated a fellow female employee and that he
did not conduct himself in a courteous and professional manner.
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 actions
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
There is no question that the Claimant engaged in very serious wrongdoing which
justifed a major penalty being imposed upon him. Despite the fact that he has been
employed by the Carrier for nearly eighteen years, this Board agrees with the finding of
the Hearing Officer that the Carrier had a legitimate basis upon which to discharge the
Claimant. Employers can often be held responsible for the outrageous acts of sexual
2
harassment engaged in by their employees. Consequently, this Board must find that the
Carrier acted properly when it terminated the Claimant. Therefore the claim will be
denied.
AWARD
Claim denied.
Carrier Member
DATED:
12A I
PETER R. YERS
Neutral Member