SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 84
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2020D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
FINDINGS:
Claimant J.W. Curry is employed as a track foreman by Carrier in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On October 30, 1987, Claimant was
notified to attend a formal investigation of the charge:
Violation of Rule "D" of Amtrak's Rules of Conduct, the part which
reads, "Employees must understand and obey company and departmental
policies, procedures and special instructions . . . ."
Violation of Amtrak's Operating Rules & Instructions, Rule No. 629,
that part which reads, "Trains must not pass an interlocking signal
indicating STOP, except when authorized by a Clearance Permit Form
C.
Violation of Amtrak's Operating Rules & Instructions, Rule No. 802,
that part which reads, "Foremen . . . must be qualified annually on
the Operating Rules and physical characteristics of the territory
over which they are to operate."
Specificati'on: In that at approximately 11:21 p.m. on Thursday,
October 22, 1987, Sperry Rail Car SRS 143 - while under your
supervision as Foreman/Pilot - passed 206L signal in the stop
position and ran through No. 203 switch in the reverse position.
You accepted this assignment and were not qualified on the section
of the railroad.
The hearing took place on November 23, 1987, and as a result, Claimant
was assessed a thirty-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 the rule violations with
which he was charged. Therefore, the Carrier had a sufficient basis
to issue discipline to the Claimant.
Once this Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence
1
qsc~-8~
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 that the
action taken by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. Although the rule violations with which the Claimant was
found guilty are serious, the record also reveals that the Claimant
has performed service. for many years for the Carrier with no previous
discipline on his record. Given that work history and the nature of
the offense, this Board finds that the action taken by the Carrier in
assessing the Claimant a thirty-day suspension was unreasonable. This
Board orders that the discipline be reduced to a written warning and a
ten-day suspension, and the Claimant shall be made whole for all lost
pay after ten days. This Board believes that this long-term employee
will get the message that the Carrier intends to transmit without the
necessity of the lengthy suspension.
Award:
Claim sustained in part. The thirty-day suspension is hereby
reduced to a ten-day suspension plus a written warning. The Claimant
is to be made whole for
~1_
r
all 1 's"t pay after ten days.
t
-' Neutral Member~J
i
r
_ o
Carrier ember Organization Member