SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 74
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-1986D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
FINDINGS:
Claimant J.L. Carrington was employed as a foreman by the Carrier
at its Odenton, Maryland, facility. On August 12, 1987, Claimant was
directed to attend a hearing in connection with the following charges:
1. You are in violation of Rule 4204(B) of Amtrak Safety Rules which
reads in part[:] maintain constant look out in the direction in
which moving, particularly on curve, at switch, frog, crossing or
intersection for obstruction or other equipment or machinery shall
be headed in the direction in which moving, if practicable,
otherwise, make arrangements that will assure constant look out
being maintained in the direction in which moving.
Specifications: In that on Monday, August 10, 1987, at
approximately 12:30 a.m. in the vicinity of MP 113.9 Long siding,
you being foreman of the Burro Crane #A58803, is [sic] responsible
_ for maintaining a constant look out in the direction in which
moving; also `.in-seeing'that the equipment being operated is facing
the direction moving, if practicable and thus, is [sic] to be held
directly responsible for the derailment of the Burro Crane #8803
occuring in the vicinity of MP 113.9 on Long siding, at
approximately 12:30 a.m. on August 10, 1987.
2. You are in violation of Rule #910, Paragraph #4 of the Amtrak
Operating Rules and Instructions, which reads in part[:] Track
Foremen are responsible for safety instruction and safe performance
of all employees under their jurisdiction. They are responsible
for the care and proper use of tools, material, and equipment.
Specifications: In that on Monday, August 10, 1987, at
approximately 12:30 a.m. in the vicinity of MP 113.9 Long siding,
you being the foreman in charge of the Burro Crane are in charge of
safe movement as specified in the above rule.
The hearing aook place on October 12, 1987, and as a result, Claimant
was assessed a twenty-day suspension and was disqualified as a foreman
for six months. The organization thereafter filed a claim on
Claimant's behalf, challenging the discipline.
This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case,
1
X86-~
and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding that the Claimant was guilty of not properly performing
his duties as foreman in charge of movement of the Burro Crane.
Therefore, the Carrier was within its rights to issue discipline to
the Claimant.
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 the action
taken by the carrier to have been
unreasonable, arbitrary,
and
capricious. In the case at hand, the Claimant received a 20-day
suspension and was disqualified as foreman for six months. Given the
nature of the charge and the previous service record of the Claimant,
including two disciplines within the two-month period prior to this
incident, this Board cannot find that the action taken by the Carrier'
was unreasonable. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
7
Neutral Member
Carrier Member O~ga ization Member
Date:
2