SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 986
Case No. 95
Docket No. NEC-BMWE-SD-2128D
PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
TO
DISPUTE: National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
FINDINGS:
Claimant A. Migliore was employed as a track foreman by carrier
at its Sunnyside Yard in New York. On January 18, 1988, Claimant was
directed to attend a formal investigation in connection with the
following charge:
In that on January 6, 1988, you were in violation of Amtrak General
Rule of Conduct, Rule B, which reads in part, "Employees must
understand and comply with safety regulations and practices
pertinent to their class or craft of employment. In all
circumstances, employees should take the safest course of action.
Hazardous condition . . . must be immediately reported to the
appropriate supervisor and corrected as quickly as possible.
- Employees must promptly report . . defects in tracks . . . which
may affect the safe movement of trains . ." When you were
informed of a possible pull-apart by the Trouble Desk and did not
inspect the track to determine the severity of the problem, but
instead placed a 30 MPH slow order on the track, which in effect
allowed trains to operate over a hazardous condition.
The hearing took place on February 18, 1988, and as a result, Claimant
was disqualified for one year as a track foreman/assistant foreman.
The Organization thereafter filed a claim on Claimant's behalf,
challenging his disqualification.
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 violating Rule B when he
failed to visually inspect and report the hazardous condition.
Once this. Board has determined 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
1
Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find the action taken by
the Carrier to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
In the case at hand, the Claimant received a one-year
disqualification as a track foreman/assistant foreman in response to
his negligence of failing to inspect the track. This Board cannot
find that the action taken by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary,
or capricious. Therefore, the claim must be denied.
Award:
W
Claim denied.
PETER R MEYERS
Neutral Member
Carrier Member ganization Member
Date:
2