BEFORE SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 986
PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
TO
DISPUTE: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) -
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
1. The dismissal of B & B Mason D. Haines for violation of NRPC
Rules F1, F2, F3 and K on dates stipulated in the Notice of
Charges, was arbitrary, capricious, without just and
sufficient cause, on the basis of unproven Charges and in
violation of the Agreement (System File NBC-BMWE-SD-2337D).
2. The Claimant shall be reinstated to service with seniority
and all other rights and benefits unimpaired, his record
cleared of the charges leveled against him and he shall be
compensated for all wage loss suffered.
FINDINGS:
Claimant D. Haines was employed as a B & B Mason by Carrier on
August 30, 1988 Claimant was instructed to attend a trial in
connection with the following charge:
"1) In that on or about May 25, 1988, you removed an Amtrak
burning torch from a company vehicle, and on or about May
26, 1988, you returned it.
2) In that between the dates of May 12, 1988 and June 16,
1988, you removed stain from the B & B storeroom at
LancasEer, PA, and the stain was later recovered by Amtrak
Police, after being purchased at Harry's Auction, as part of
items sold by Bertha Haines."
The hearing was held on November 9, 1988, and as a result,
Claimant was dismissed from service. The Organization thereafter
filed a claim on Claimant's behlaf, 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 removed the torch from a company vehicle
and also some cans of stain from'the company storeroom.
CIS& - RIP
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 that action
to have been unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
The Claimant in the case at hand had 11 and 1/2 years of
seniority. Although he was found guilty of some very serious
offenses, this Board must find that, given his lengthy seniority and
his relatively good discipline record, the Carrier acted
unreasonably when it terminated his employment. This Board finds
that the Claimant should have been issued a lengthy suspension
for the wrongdoing as a final warning that any further wrongdoing
on his part would lead to his dismissal. This Board must order
that the Claimant be reinstated to service but without back pay.
AWARD
Claim sustained in part. Claimant is to be reinstated to service
without back pay.
Y
Neutral Memb r
Carrier member Organization Member
Date:
/6' _ l7
-°~
2