SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 78
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2066D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
FINDINGS:
Claimant D. Brown was employed as a trackman by Carrier at its
Penn Coach Yard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On February 9, 1988,
Claimant was notified to attend a formal investigation in connection
with the following charge:
Violations of Amtrak's Rules of Conduct, Rule "K", that part which
reads, "misappropriation . . . of Amtrak'. . . property . . . is
prohibited. Employees must use Amtrak . . property . . . with
care and economy and protect them from theft or abuse by others."
Violation of Amtrak's Rules of Conduct, Rule "0", that part which
reads, "Employees must . . . attend to their duties during assigned
working hours. Employees may not be absent from their assigned
duty or engage in other than Amtrak business while on duty . . .
without permission from their supervisor."
Specifications: (1) In that on Thursday, February 4, 1988 at
approximately 7:30 P.M., you did not return from your lunch break
with Amtrak vehicle #AA13503, which was entrusted in your care, nor
did you return this vehicle to Amtrak property. When this vehicle
was recovered on February 5, 1988, track equipment, including two
Punjair tamping guns, was missing from the vehicle. (2) In that on
Thursday, February 4, 1988, at approximately 7:30 P.M., you failed
to report to your assigned work location at the conclusion of your
authorized lunch break and did not return to your headquarters at
the end of your tour of duty. During this time, you did not notify
Amtrak of your whereabouts or the reason for your absence and did
not perform any work for Amtrak.
The hearing took place on February 23, 1988, and as a result, Claimant
was dismissed from service. The organization thereafter filed a claim
on Claimant's behalf, challenging his dismissal.
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 violation of Amtrak Rules
1
of Conduct Rule K and Rule 0 as charged in the Notice of
Investigation. Therefore, the Carrier had sufficient reason to impose
discipline on 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-it to have
been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. In the case at hand, the
Claimant clearly engaged in wrongdoing by not returning to work after
his lunch period. He also was rather careless in protecting the
Carrier's property. However, it appears that once the carrier's
property was stolen, he spent a great deal of time attempting to
retrieve it and did not in any way misappropriate the Carrier's
property or do anything of a dishonest nature. Therefore, upon a
thorough review and analysis of the record and the facts in this case,
this Board must find that the Carrier acted unreasonably in
terminating the Claimant's employment. The Claimant has been employed
by the Carrier since February 1976, and his prior service record shows
only a 45-day suspension for sleeping on the job in 1982 and two 10day suspensions for unauthorized absenteeism in 1983. The Carrier did
not have a sufficient basis to terminate the Claimant, and the
termination shall be reduced to a lengthy suspension. The Claimant
shall be reinstated upon issuance of this award.
Award:
Claim sustained. The termination of the Claimant is reduced to a
lengthy suspension. The Claimant is to be reinstated without back
2
pay.
Neutral Memb~
tion Member
zA-at
-77
Car ier Men
Date: