SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 72
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2017D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
1. The dismissal of Repairman R.C. Majetich for alleged violation
of Rule 'F', Part 2 on June 11, 1987, at approximately 3:00
A.M., at the WAWA parking lot located at Old Route 13 and Penn
Valley Road, Falls Township, Pennsylvania, was arbitrary,
capricious, on the basis of unproven charges and in violation of
the Agreement (System File NBC-BMWE-SD-2017D).
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other
rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for all wage and
benefit loss suffered."
FINDINGS:
Claimant R. Majetich was employed as a repairman by Carrier at
its New Brunswick, New Jersey, facility. On June 19, 1987, Claimant
was removed from service and directed-jto attend a hearing in
connection with the following charges:
Alleged violation of Rule "F," part 2, of the NRPC (Amtrak) Rules
of Conduct, which reads in part as follows:
Rule "F," Part 2, . . . "Employees will not threaten . . . other
employees or members of the-public while on duty-. : -:" -
Specification: In that on Thursday, June 11, 1987, at approximately
3:00 a.m., at the WAWA [convenience store] parking lot located at
old Rt. 13 and Penn Valley Road, Falls Township, Pennsylvania, you
made threats against the lives of Equipment Engineer Michael Marino
and members of his family.
The hearing took place on November 24, 1987, and as a result, Claimant
was dismissed from the Carrier's service. The Organization thereafter
filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging his dismissal.
This Board has reviewed the procedural claims raised by the
organization, and we find them to be without merit.
1
~18~-W
With respect to the substantive issues, 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 the offenses with which he was charged.
Therefore, the Carrier had sufficient basis upon which to impose
discipline.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support a guilty finding, we next turn our attention
to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will normally not set
aside a carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find.it to
tie
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. This Claimant was properly
found guilty of making very serious threats against the members of the
family of another employee of the Carrier. That is a very serious
charge; and despite the long tenure of the Claimant, as well as the
fact that he had no previous discipline on his record during the ten
years he was employed by the Carrier, this Board must find that the
carrier was within its rights when it determined that dismissal was
the appropriate action to be taken in this case. Although the
Claimant states that his threats against the fellow employee's
children were "nonsense," these days those types of comments have to
be taken seriously. The other employee was clearly concerned about
those threats, and the Carrier took tough and appropriate action
within its own discretion. This Board cannot find that the action
taken by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious given
the nature of the threat. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
2
Gg(o-
-7a
Award:
Claim denied.
Carrier Mem
Date:
LoAk
,~YVV
Neutral Member`;
0 gan zation Member