SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 76
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2042D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
FINDINGS:
Claimant M. Gibson is employed as a trackman by Carrier at its
Adams, New Jersey, facility. On December 9, 1987, Claimant was
directed to attend a hearing in connection with the following charges:
Charge: Violation of Rule "F" of the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation Rules of Conduct which reads in part:
1. "All employees are required to conduct themselves in a courteous
and professional manner in dealing with . . . other Amtrak
employees. Boisterous conduct or horseplay and profane or vulgar
language are prohibited."
2. "Employees will not . . threaten, harass, intimidate, . . . or
participate in any activity which could cause bodily injury to
other employees . . . while on duty or on Amtrak property or using
Amtrak equipment. Employees, whether on or off duty, will not
disrupt or interfere with other employees in the performance of
their duties."
in that, on the night of December 8-9, you allegedly harassed,
threatened and intimidated Truck Driver Daryl Dudden, used profane
and vulgar language to him and attempted to interfere with his
performance of his duties.
The hearing took place on December 15, 1987, and as a result, Claimant
was assessed a ninety-day suspension. The Organization thereafter
filed a claim on Claimant's behalf, challenging the suspension.
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 engaging in boisterous
conduct and threatening behavior toward a truck driver.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
in the record to support a guilty finding, we next turn our attention
1
qg~-~(P
to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a
carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find it to have been
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. The Claimant in this case has
previously been suspended on three occasions for the same offense.
Apparently, those suspensions have been falling on deaf ears, and the
Claimant has not begun to reform his behavior. Therefore, this Board
cannot find that the action taken by the Carrier in assessing a 90-day
suspension against the Claimant for the same type of activity in this
case was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the claim
will be denied.
Award:
Claim denied.
9
Neutral Member / /
~f
Car ier iemb Pr- 0,~'gan zati n Member
Date:
~- ~~'-
V1
2