SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 56
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-1748D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
FINDINGS:
Claimant E. Lewis, Jr. was employed as a foreman by the Carrier
at its T.L.S. Unit at Winslow Jct., New Jersey. On February 12, 1987,
Claimant was notified to attend an investigation of the charges:
Violation of NRPC 2525, Rules of Conduct, Rule 'L' . . . which
reads in part as follows:
Rule 'L' . . Obeying Instructions . . Employees must obey
instructions, d2rections, and orders from Amtrak supervisory
personnel and officers except when confronted by a clear and
immediate danger to themselves, property, or the public.
Insubordinate conduct will not be tolerated.
Specification #1: In that on Friday, January 23, 1987, at
approximately 1:00 PM, in the vicinity of Penn Coach Yard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, you were given verbal instructions by
'A' Foreman (acting project engineer) Mitchell W. Moore, to secure
Amtrak Van AB44195 at Penn Coach Yard, 30th Street Station,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and your failure to comply with same
instructions.
Violation of NRPC 2525, Rules of Conduct, Rule 'R', which reads in
part as follows:
Rule 'R' . . Company Property . . . Employees will not . . .
waste Amtrak property. Theft, misappropriation, or use for
personal gain of Amtrak funds, property, or services, is
prohibited. Employees must be specifically authorized to use the
company's credit or receive or pay out money on the company's
account. Employees must use Amtrak funds, property, services, and
the services of other employees with care and economy and protect
them from theft or abuse by others.
Specification #2: Contrary to above referenced instructions, you
and fellow employees used Amtrak Van JAB44195 from Penn Coach Yard,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Abingdon, Maryland without property
(sic) authority and used Amtrak oil credit card for the purchase of
fuel without authorization.
The hearing was held on February 19, 1987, and as a result, Claimant
was assessed a thirty-day suspension and a six-month disqualification
1
~ 8c~-sc~
as foreman. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's
behalf, challenging the assessed discipline.
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 both Rule L and
Rule R.
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 by the Carrier. In this
case, the Claimant received a thirty (30) day suspension and a six (6)
month disqualification as foreman. We can see nothing unreasonable or
arbitrary about that penalty, given the nature of the offenses for
which the Claimant was found guilty. Therefore, the claim must be
denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
Neutral Member
G
Cirri r Me r ~brganizaaton Member
Date:
~4--
(L-9,
2