SPECIAL HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 2
Docket NO. NRC-BMWE-SD-1297D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
TO
DISPUTE: Amtrak
FINDINGS:
On April 2, 1985, Claimant Louis H. Johnson was notified
that he was being held out of service beginning that day in connection
with the incidents that occurred between the hours of. 4 a.m. and 7
a.m. on April 2, 1985. On April 4, 1985, Claimant was sent a
Notice of Hearing, scheduling an investigation for April 10, 1985,
into the charge that the Claimant threatened a foreman with a weapon.
Claimant was charged with violations of Rules I and J. Those rules
state:
Rule I. Employees will not be retained in the
service who are insubordinate, dishonest,
immoral, quarrelsome, or otherwise vicious, or
who do not conduct themselves in such a manner
that the Company will not be subjected to
criticism and hiss of good wiJl.
Rule J. Courteous conduct is required of all
··mployees in their denlin·q with th~ public,
th.air subordinates, and each orher. But.^rterous,
profane, or vulgar language is forbidden.
Violence, fighting, horseplay, threatening, or
interferring with oth,ar employees or while on
duty is prohibited.
After a few postponements, a hearing was held on April 29,
1985; and as a result of. the hearing, the Claimant was dismissed from
the service.
The Organization contends that the Carrier did not present
sufficient evidence to sustain the hearing officer's finding of
guilty. The Organization contends that the Claimant presented
1
substantial evidence of an alibi that he was in a restaurant at the
time of the incident. The Organization also points to the statements
of two individuals who contended that they observed the Claimant in
the restaurant 17 miles away from the alleged incident at the same
time the Claimant's wrongdoing allegedly occurred. The Organization
argues that the Claimant adequately rebutted the Carrier's case, and
the Carrier did not adequately respond to the rebuttal. Hence, the
Organization argues, the claim should be sustained.
The Carrier argues that the testimony of the foreman clearly
establishes that the Claimant threatened the foreman, first with a
knife and later with a firearm. Moreover, the record is clear that
the conversation during the threatening behavior related to the work
place and the fact that the Claimant believed that the foreman had
been responsible for the Claimant not being paid monies he believed he
was owed. Finally, the Carrier argues that the wrongdoing of the
Claimant plus his discipline history justified the discharge.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this.
- case, and we find r-hat there is sufficient evidence in the record to
support the Carrier's finding that the Claimant wan guilty of the
offense wit-h
which he was charged. Claimant clearly violated the
rules by threatening his foreman with a knife and a gun.
- Once this Board decides ,that there is sufficient evidence in
the record to support the Carrier's finding of guilty, we then turn
our attention to t-he amount of discipline imposed. This Board will -
' not set aside a Carrier's imposition of. discipline unless we find that
. it was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. The Claimant's record
2
shows an extensive discipline history, including a previous suspension
and several letters of warning. That record coupled with the
seriousness of the charge, proven against the Claimant are sufficient
to support the Carrier's decision to terminate the Claimant.
AWARD:
Claim dense .
y.~1
r'h.iirman, Neutral
r·
bar
v
I
/W .-t,_~ l~y Li'
Carria·r'M-m~rer
''
Unicr.; M~·:^tn·r
~-~
Date: ~. "cJ
3