|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
Investigation - Burden of Proof - Substantive Evidence
Public Law Board No. 5916-Award 137
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-12-01 00:00:00
Synopsis:
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6953-Award 41
Neutral: John L. Easley
Parties: UTU vs. UP
Award Date: 2009-11-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained-in-part the appeal of a Conductor charged with violation of restricted speed, Rule 6.28, when locomotive allegedly operated through switch improperly lined at Black Dog, MN. Rule 6.28 is a speed rule. Movement was stopped prior to operating over switch; employee walked past switch and thought it properly lined. Carrier failed to prove speed was cause of accident; discipline reduced, Rule 8.20, position of switches and derails.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6953-Award 46
Neutral: John L. Easley
Parties: UTU vs. UP
Award Date: 2009-11-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained the appeal of a Conductor charged with alleged violation of Rule 81.4.2, getting on moving equipment at Proviso, Illinois. Employee stated that he had not boarded the equipment while moving. The charging manager alleged that from 200 feet distant, at an oblique angle, he witnessed the equipment moving one-half mile per hour. Insufficient evidence to uphold discipline.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7020-Award 83
Neutral: Barry E. Simon
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2009-10-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained in part the reinstatement and claim for lost earnings of brakeman for missing a call for service. Although the claimant was unable to attend the investigation due to being on active duty with the armed forces, the Organization argued that the Carrier's proof was less than substantial and that his dismissal was unreasonable given his employment protections while acting in the service of this country. While the Neutral determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant discipline, he additionally ruled that the discipline assessed was unduly harsh. Therefore, the claimant was reinstated to active service with seniority unimpaired, with no lost earnings, pending his release from the armed forces.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6059-Award 532
Neutral: F. T. Lynch
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-09-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was charged with failing to ensure sufficient amount of hand brakes were applied to secure equipment left standing and assessed five days actual suspension. The Board finds that Carrier failed in its burden to produce substantial evidence to justify its decision that claimant was guilty.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6880-Award 45
Neutral: John R. Binau
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-08-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: This case is self-explanatory. Where there is conflicting testimony, the Board will tend to support a finding that the Carrier officers are more credible than the involved employees. In order to overcome that hurdle, our explanation of events must not only be believable, but must be supported by concrete evidence. It is always best to err on the side of doing a little extra — in this case, making the request for 3-step over the radio — than to appear to fall short of compliance with a rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6880-Award 48
Neutral: John R. Binau
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-08-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: The claimant in this case was charged with failing to face the direction of movement. There was conflicting testimony from the claimant and the sole observer, the trainmaster who entered the failure. Local Chairman did not fall into the trap of trying to resolve the conflict; he limited his questioning of the trainmaster. It is the job of the hearing officer to resolve conflicts in the evidence presented; he failed to do that, thus the sustaining award.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6880-Award 51
Neutral: John R. Binau
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-08-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: In this case, Local Chairman (representing the switchman, who was exonerated immediately after the hearing) did a good job of exposing conflicts in the testimony and evidence. These were not resolved at the hearing and the Board found that the Carrier did not meet its burden of proof.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6213-Award 219
Neutral: F. T. Lynch
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-06-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was charged with "failure to keep clear of moving equipment" and dismounting moving equipment. The charge was based on the report of an FRA inspector. There were serious discrepancies in the report from the FRA inspector — who was not present at the hearing; in addition, the first-hand testimony of the claimant and his brakeman was in conflict with the FRA report.
The claimant admitted dismounting a moving car, but said he did so when he lost his footing. The brakeman corroborated the claimants testimony. The FRA inspector was told what happened at the scene, but she discounted the crew members explanation.
Following a timely objection to the Carriers failure to produce the key witness — the FRA inspector, Local Chairman did a good job of further undermining her credibility by painting a picture of the location for the arbitrator, including photos of the location and the view that an observer would have, thereby demonstrating that the FRA inspector could not have seen clearly seen the conductor
during any portion of the move given the curvature of the track and several obstructions, including vegetation and a defect detector.
The Board ruled that the Carrier failed to produce "substantial evidence" to justify its findings of guilt.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6902-Award 146
Neutral: Francis J. Domzalski
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-04-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained: Claimant was assessed thirty days actual suspension for [alleged] failure to communicate distance to move in car lengths to engineer. The claimant testified that he did; the locomotive engineer corroborated the testimony. Carrier's chief prosecutorial witness testified emphatically that the claimant failed to comply with Rule 421. During the hearing, it was developed that the RFE was on another locomotive with a crew member from another job. Also, the crew requested the tapes be pulled within an hour after the incident occurred.
We declared that claimant did not receive a fair and impartial hearing because CSXT refused to call the employee located on the engine with RFE Ewer and also that CSXT failed to "pull" the tapes to substantiate or discredit the testimony. Based on the foregoing, we were able to discredit the testimony of Carrier's witness.
This case was won at the local level because the local chairperson did the necessary investigative work — request made for the tapes and developed another employee was on the locomotive.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6213-Award 207
Neutral: F. T. Lynch
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-02-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was assessed fifteen days actual suspension for alleged failure to properly place a brake stick back in the holder. LC Chapman quizzed RFE Ziegler, and ascertained that he (Ziegler) discovered the misplaced brake stick some 12 hours 45 minutes after crew was off duty. Additionally, he testified the brake stick was extended. Claimant testified that he returned brake stick to its proper location. This was an area where trespassers walk.
The Board was not impressed with the testimony of RFE Ziegler. It politely held that CSXT failed to meet its burden of proof
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6880-Award 34
Neutral: John R. Binau
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-02-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was an engineer pilot when the train he was piloting, while operating at restricted speed, struck a simulated obstruction device. Carrier assessed claimant thirty days actual suspension. In the discipline letter, carrier found that claimant violated Operating Rule 103-D. Operating Rule 103-D covers switching cars; it has nothing to do with failure to stop within 1/2 the range of vision. The pertinent rules are Rule 193 and 45; however, CSXT did not find that claimant violated those rules. The Board found that claimant was disciplined for something that he was not charged with violating and the record did not cover.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6902-Award 140
Neutral: Francis J. Domzalski
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-01-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained: Claimant was disciplined fifteen days actual suspension for violation of Operating Rule GR-2, failure to behave in a civil and courteous manner when dealing with company officer. Carrier officer asserted claimant was disrespectful. The other two crew members testified otherwise, and their account did not differ. They were sequestered while giving testimony. The Board found that the assessment for 15 days for such an alleged serious event, along with the testimony, discredited the assertions of the carrier officer.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7145-Award 8
Neutral: Gerald E. Wallin
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2009-01-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained: Claimant was disciplined for violating Operating Rule GR-1 for his alleged failure to report for duty. Claimant received a call for work. The crew center asserted that claimant did not vocally respond and accept the call (yet they did not call anyone else).
The record showed that claimant reported for duty and waited for taxi to be transported to outlying assignment. CMC asserted that since claimant did not request carrier provided transportation, he did not accept the call. Local Chairman presented Article Rd-12 that reads an employee must request permission to use personal vehicle. If the employee does not so request, Carrier is required to furnish transportation. As such, since claimant was silent, the Carrier was required to have transportation available.
After claimant arrived at work, he contacted supervision and advised there was no transportation available. After further checking, it was found that no taxi was ordered, the trainmaster told the claimant to go home, which he did. The trainmaster then cancelled the work assignment and charged the employee. Local Chairman did an excellent job in getting conflicting testimony from the carrier's witnesses, thus a major basis when the Board found that Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7145-Award 2
Neutral: Gerald E. Wallin
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-12-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Partially Sustained: Claimant (trainman) was dismissed after a sideswiped occurred. Claimant kicked cars in a track, kicked cars to another track; the first cars did not couple and rolled back.
During oral arguments to the Board, we asserted that the rule for which claimant was disciplined was not applicable; thus, Carrier did not meet its burden of proof. There was a local rule that expressly prohibited the "kicking of cars" at this location; however, CSXT did not find that claimant violated this rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7145-Award 5
Neutral: Gerald E. Wallin
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-12-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained: Claimant (conductor) failed to protect shoving movement that resulted in a sideswipe and derailment. CSXT dismissed claimant.
CSXT failed to comply with Article General 2, Section 1.D.3 of the UTU Schedule Agreement. The Board sustained the claim based on CSXT's failure to comply with Article General 2, Section 1.D.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7145-Award 4
Neutral: Gerald E. Wallin
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-12-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained: Claimant was engineer on a job wherein carrier asserted that he failed to make a proper brake test. Claimant was assessed thirty days actual suspension
With respect to the merits of the case, Carrier asserted that claimant should have known that the conductor failed to make a proper brake test because the walking test was performed quickly. The Board did not "buy" this finding, as explained in the Award, and held that Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6902-Award 109
Neutral: Francis J. Domzalski
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-11-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant (conductor) was charged with failure to verify inbound track list, which resulted in delays to an outbound train because cars were brought in that were allegedly not on the list.
During the hearing, Local Chairperson did an excellent job discrediting the testimony of carrier's witness by showing that his data was incomplete and was not factually correct.
Claimant was not guilty, however, the Board sustained the claim on a different basis. Claimant was not guilty of the rule for which he was disciplined.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6902-Award 115
Neutral: Francis J. Domzalski
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-11-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant (yard foreman) was charged and disciplined with leaving cars unsecured. Local Chairperson Hayes did research and showed that claimant never handled the cars. Carrier did recall its witness and dispute the data. Thus at the Board session, our job was easy, Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6902-Award 98
Neutral: Francis J. Domzalski
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-09-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained: Claimant was assessed fifteen days actual suspension for violation of Operating Rule GS-16 — secure handbrake that was located on the end of the car without using a brake stick. Claimant violated the rule; however, during the hearing, evidence was presented that claimant understood he could secure the handbrake while standing on the ground without using a brake stick. Claimant and four other individuals testified that the superintendent stated that that it could be done. Upon cross examination, the superintendent testified that he did not so state the employee could secure the hand brake without using a brake stick Claim was sustained on basis of conflicting testimony.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7192-Award 4
Neutral: Jacalyn Zimmerman
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-08-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained removal of a 10-day record suspension for a hostler who allegedly failed to comply with instructions and abandoned their assignment without authority. The Neutral ruled that the Carrier had not met their burden of proof, therefore the censure will be removed from the claimant's record and he will be compensated for any time lost.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7192-Award 5
Neutral: Jacalyn Zimmerman
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-08-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained removal of a 10-day record suspension for a conductor who allegedly failed to provide factual information on a cab condition claim. The Neutral ruled that the Carrier had not met their burden of proof, therefore the censure will be removed from the claimant's record and she will be compensated for any time lost.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7040-Award 24
Neutral: Gerald E. Wallin
Parties: UTU vs. CSX (B&O)
Award Date: 2008-07-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was assessed a two-day overhead suspension in accordance with Carrier’s attendance reliability policy. The Neutral gleaned for the record that claimant made himself voluntarily unavailable for work assignments during periods where he delayed making his displacement. The Neutral places upon the Organization the burden of proving that a 48-hour displacement exercise of seniority provision also creates some form of immunity from being considered unavailable for work during that period under Carrier’s availability policy requirements.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7178-Award 42
Neutral: Charles S. Loughran
Parties: UTU vs. UP
Award Date: 2008-06-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: The Carrier did not meet burden of proof in assessing discipline when the Company rule (1) did not apply to the craft he was working in and (2) was not in effect until two days after the incident.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7067-Award 8
Neutral: Joseph A. Cassidy, Jr.
Parties: UTU vs. CSX (B&O)
Award Date: 2008-05-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was charged with damage and derailment when he failed to protect his movement when he kicked car into track causing another car to derail. The Neutral finds it unfathomable how or why the Carrier could produce a witness who took pictures at the scene and still fail to produce those photos at the investigation. There is no logical explanation for withholding that evidence for whatever value it might have had. Claim Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6059-Award 520
Neutral: F. T. Lynch
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-03-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was charged with failing to meet the minimum availability requirements. The Neutral finds that Claimant was denied his right to a fair and impartial investigation (Hearing Officer denied claimant’s request to have 2 witnesses present).
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6059-Award 522
Neutral: F. T. Lynch
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-03-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was charged with failing to meet the minimum availability requirements and assessed a 2 day overhead suspension. The Neutral finds that the Carrier has failed in its burden to produce substantial evidence to justify its decision that claimant was guilty.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6059-Award 524
Neutral: F. T. Lynch
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-03-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was charged with failing to meet the minimum availability requirements and assessed a 5 day actual suspension. The Neutral finds that claimant was denied his right to a fair and impartial investigation when the Hearing Officer was originally scheduled to be a Carrier witness at the investigation.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 4269-Award 526
Neutral: Don B. Hays
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-03-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: (Sustained)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6880-Award 28
Neutral: John R. Binau
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-03-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: (Sustained)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6880-Award 29
Neutral: John R. Binau
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-03-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: (Sustained)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6880-Award 32
Neutral: John R. Binau
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2008-03-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: (Sustained)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7020-Award 32
Neutral: Barry E. Simon
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-03-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied claim of switchman for removal of censure and lost earnings for failure to provide factual information on timeslips when off for “company business”. Claimant was originally dismissed for this alleged infraction but later reinstated with right to pursue censure and lost earnings to arbitration. Neutral found that there was enough doubt with respect to the claimant’s utilization of this lay off privilege and the associated claims for missed trips to warrant discipline
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7109-Award 5
Neutral: Carol J. Zamperini
Parties: UTU vs. UP-C&NW
Award Date: 2008-02-14 00:00:00
Synopsis:
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7020-Award 27
Neutral: Barry E. Simon
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-02-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: (Sustained)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7020-Award 27
Neutral: Barry E. Simon
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-02-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained claim for reinstatement to active service and lost earnings for switchman that was dismissed for allegedly getting on and off moving equipment. The neutral ruled that the Carrier did not produce the requisite burden of proof that claimant violated the rule. Aside from producing only one of two of the Carrier officers present at the site, the locomotive tape submitted at the investigation raised more questions than answers.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7020-Award 30
Neutral: Barry E. Simon
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-02-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained in part the dismissal of a road switchtender for allegedly making inappropriate and false claims on his expense sheets while performing service as a switchtender at an intermediate location. After make the “Top 10" list for expenses on the system, investigation indicated that claimant was submitting for mileage between his home and the job site on a daily basis for a period of several years. The Organization contended that this arrangement had been agreed to in years past for this assignment due to the varying conditions under which the claimant voluntarily used his personal vehicle to perform this service. Unfortunately, no Carrier witness would confirm this arrangement. Although the neutral determined that the claimant had indeed submitted improper expenses, due to the fact that he had excellent record with over 30 years of service, he was reinstated to active service but with no lost earnings.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6297-Award 2989
Neutral: John L. Easley
Parties: UTU vs. UP
Award Date: 2008-01-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: (Sustained)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6944-Award 51
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-01-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor disciplined for failure to monitor the radio and conduct adequate job briefing. The record reveals that Claimant’s Engineer initiated movement without authorization or signal, which resulted in a derailment. The Board found no evidence of any rule violation on the part of the Claimant Conductor.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6944-Award 37
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-01-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained the claim of an Engineer suspended for 42 days for alleged failure to work safely after another member of the crew was injured by the unexpected movement of standing cars due to slack action. The Board found no evidence of any rule violation on the part of the Engineer Claimant.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6944-Award 61
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-01-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman issued a 20-Day Record Suspension for alleged violation of Attendance Guidelines. The Board held Carrier failed to adequately clarify Claimant’s attendance threshold during the period in question.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6944-Award 92
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-01-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer issued 30-Day Record Suspension for alleged falsification of layoff. The Board found that Claimant’s later participation in personal activities is not adequate proof that he was dishonest when he laid off sick the previous day.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 6944-Award 98
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. BNSF
Award Date: 2008-01-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yardman issued Formal Reprimand for alleged violation of Attendance Guidelines. Carrier failed to adequately show how Claimant worked “less than full time”.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7040-Award 1
Neutral: Gerald E. Wallin
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2007-07-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was dismissed from service for failing to stop his train and overran the location by the length of two locomotives. The recorded radio conversation between foreman and crew were unintelligible. This leaves the Board doubtful that a mutual understanding existed between the parties involved. The record does not reasonably establish any wrongdoing on the claimant’s part. Carrier has not met burden of proof.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 7040-Award 15
Neutral: Gerald E. Wallin
Parties: UTU vs. CSX
Award Date: 2007-07-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was assessed a 51 day suspension for improperly releasing 3 step protection on his locomotive. Carrier failed to satisfy its burden of proof to demonstrate claimant’s culpability.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 5263-Award 220 Public Law Board No. 5263-Award 223 Public Law Board No. 4269-Award 521 Public Law Board No. 6890-Award 5 Public Law Board No. 6902-Award 39 Public Law Board No. 6721-Award 42 Public Law Board No. 6823-Award 48 Public Law Board No. 6823-Award 40 Public Law Board No. 6823-Award 37 Public Law Board No. 6823-Award 38 Public Law Board No. 5263-Award 213 Public Law Board No. 6916-Award 15 Public Law Board No. 5263-Award 211 Public Law Board No. 5263-Award 206 Public Law Board No. 4269-Award 515 Special Board of Adjustment No. 955-Award 536 Public Law Board No. 6953-Award 8 First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 26298 Public Law Board No. 5731-Award 137 First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 26295 Public Law Board No. 6296-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 960-Award 108 Public Law Board No. 960-Award 91 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 346 Public Law Board No. 717-Award 583 Public Law Board No. 717-Award 578 Public Law Board No. 2946-Award 96 Public Law Board No. 2946-Award 67 Public Law Board No. 2946-Award 71 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 322 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 330 Public Law Board No. 3452-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 3195-Award 103 Public Law Board No. 3598-Award 2 Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 268 Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 132 Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 133 Public Law Board No. 912-Award 726 Public Law Board No. 2236-Award 60 Public Law Board No. 3167-Award 3 Public Law Board No. 596-Award 154 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2843 Public Law Board No. 596-Award 152 Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 128 Public Law Board No. 2424-Award 76 Public Law Board No. 3379-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 3379-Award 9 Public Law Board No. 3379-Award 18 Public Law Board No. 3229-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 3400-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 2995-Award 34 Public Law Board No. 2995-Award 36 Public Law Board No. 3205-Award 5 Special Board of Adjustment No. 884-Award 81 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 300 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 303 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 408 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 399 Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 126 Public Law Board No. 1883-Award 151 Public Law Board No. 94-Award 338 Public Law Board No. 2527-Award 72 Public Law Board No. 2089-Award 167 Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 790 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 290 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 381 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 384 Public Law Board No. 2946-Award 45 Public Law Board No. 2946-Award 49 Public Law Board No. 2946-Award 50 Public Law Board No. 3291-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 3220-Award 3 Public Law Board No. 3282-Award 6 Public Law Board No. 912-Award 668 Public Law Board No. 912-Award 663 Public Law Board No. 3007-Award 3 Public Law Board No. 3007-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 3007-Award 7 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2799 Public Law Board No. 3291-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 3291-Award 11 Public Law Board No. 3369-Award 7 Public Law Board No. 2955-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 2955-Award 15 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2784 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2785 Public Law Board No. 717-Award 518 Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 110 Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 117 Public Law Board No. 2947-Award 11 Public Law Board No. 2599-Award 56 Public Law Board No. 2984-Award 10 Public Law Board No. 2105-Award 44 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2771 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2764 Public Law Board No. 2995-Award 31 Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 117 Public Law Board No. 2333-Award 17 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2759 Public Law Board No. 2946-Award 7 Public Law Board No. 912-Award 644 Public Law Board No. 3242-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 2900-Award 20 Public Law Board No. 2900-Award 21 Public Law Board No. 2916-Award 15 Public Law Board No. 3077-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 3077-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 2201-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 755 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 297 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 270 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 261 Public Law Board No. 2991-Award 11 Public Law Board No. 2316-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 3078-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 1900-Award 66 Public Law Board No. 1900-Award 52 Public Law Board No. 1900-Award 77 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 187 Public Law Board No. 2991-Award 8 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2726 Public Law Board No. 2784-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 233 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 235 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2712 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2696 Public Law Board No. 2765-Award 15 Public Law Board No. 2993-Award 6 Public Law Board No. 912-Award 609 Public Law Board No. 912-Award 583 Public Law Board No. 3012-Award 6 Public Law Board No. 3037-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 1906-Award 294 Public Law Board No. 1981-Award 466 Public Law Board No. 1981-Award 448 Public Law Board No. 1981-Award 447 Public Law Board No. 3048-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 2003-Award 25 Public Law Board No. 2003-Award 21 Public Law Board No. 2003-Award 27 Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 86 Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 88 Public Law Board No. 2757-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 2909-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 2916-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 94-Award 321 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2662 Public Law Board No. 2049-Award 102 Public Law Board No. 1483-Award 60 Special Board of Adjustment No. 140-Award 5799 Public Law Board No. 2329-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 651 Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 257 Public Law Board No. 2858-Award 7 Public Law Board No. 2985-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 2369-Award 7 Special Board of Adjustment No. 195-Award 1094 Public Law Board No. 2677-Award 18 Public Law Board No. 2677-Award 17 Public Law Board No. 2664-Award 12 Public Law Board No. 2544-Award 10 Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 622 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 183 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 184 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 222 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 278 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2617 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2621 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2627 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2628 Public Law Board No. 2893-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 2590-Award 57 Public Law Board No. 2590-Award 61 Special Board of Adjustment No. 884-Award 40 Public Law Board No. 2443-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 2443-Award 6 Public Law Board No. 2851-Award 10 Public Law Board No. 2690-Award 3 Public Law Board No. 2949-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 165 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2604 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2600 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 180 Public Law Board No. 2796-Award 3 Public Law Board No. 2341-Award 12 Public Law Board No. 2524-Award 13 Public Law Board No. 2146-Award 21 Public Law Board No. 2639-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 1613-Award 267 Public Law Board No. 2740-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 2740-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 717-Award 383 Public Law Board No. 717-Award 496 Public Law Board No. 2492-Award 7 Arbitration Board -Award 26-78-9 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2556 Public Law Board No. 2706-Award 3 Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 258 Public Law Board No. 2122-Award 9-A Public Law Board No. 2549-Award 9 Public Law Board No. 2549-Award 10 Public Law Board No. 2594-Award 17 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2546 Public Law Board No. 2435-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 146 Public Law Board No. 2591-Award 7 Special Board of Adjustment No. 894-Award 39 Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5280 Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5277 Public Law Board No. 2346-Award 51 Public Law Board No. 1459-Award 144 Public Law Board No. 2199-Award 3 Public Law Board No. 2199-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 2618-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 1334-Award 21 Public Law Board No. 2585-Award 6 Public Law Board No. 2471-Award 18 Public Law Board No. 1549-Award 19 Public Law Board No. 1549-Award 17 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2506 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2512 Public Law Board No. 2195-Award 23 Public Law Board No. 2647-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 1906-Award 264 Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 469 Public Law Board No. 2423-Award 3 Public Law Board No. 2560-Award 7 Public Law Board No. 2552-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 2552-Award 9 Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 473 Public Law Board No. 2262-Award 11 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2493 Public Law Board No. 1459-Award 134 Public Law Board No. 2609-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 90 Public Law Board No. 2229-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 2368-Award 1 Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5325 Special Board of Adjustment No. 884-Award 19 & 20 Public Law Board No. 2579-Award 10 Public Law Board No. 2579-Award 15 Public Law Board No. 2365-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 1423-Award 6 Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 430 Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 436 Public Law Board No. 2050-Award 52 Public Law Board No. 2218-Award 23 Public Law Board No. 2330-Award 9 Public Law Board No. 2400-Award 23, 24 & 25 Public Law Board No. 2218-Award 30 Public Law Board No. 2245-Award 35 Public Law Board No. 2275-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 479 Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 492 Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 488 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2424 Public Law Board No. 2346-Award 28 Public Law Board No. 2245-Award 31 Public Law Board No. 2245-Award 33 Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5185 Public Law Board No. 1906-Award 123 Public Law Board No. 2346-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 1845-Award 17 Public Law Board No. 1932-Award 30 Public Law Board No. 1459-Award 122 Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5125 Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 385 Public Law Board No. 2071-Award 9 Public Law Board No. 2211-Award 7 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 46 Public Law Board No. 1669-Award 35 Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 187 Public Law Board No. 2143-Award 45 Public Law Board No. 1900-Award 42 Public Law Board No. 1684-Award 42 Public Law Board No. 2121-Award 20 Public Law Board No. 550-Award 478 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2243 Public Law Board No. 1869-Award 5 Public Law Board No. 2021-Award 3 Public Law Board No. 2021-Award 4 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2233 Public Law Board No. 2057-Award 4 Special Board of Adjustment No. 642-Award 196 Public Law Board No. 2026-Award 6 Public Law Board No. 1730-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 1467-Award 19 Public Law Board No. 1467-Award 25 Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 250 Public Law Board No. 1493-Award 18 Public Law Board No. 1493-Award 19 Public Law Board No. 1819-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 226 Public Law Board No. 1335-Award 5 Public Law Board No. 1342-Award 1 Special Board of Adjustment No. 642-Award 182 Public Law Board No. 94-Award 228 Public Law Board No. 1720-Award 5 Public Law Board No. 1613-Award 238 Public Law Board No. 1613-Award 249 Public Law Board No. 1558-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 1303-Award 31 Public Law Board No. 1700-Award 5 Public Law Board No. 1588-Award 3 Public Law Board No. 1588-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 1281-Award 117 Public Law Board No. 1281-Award 118 Public Law Board No. 1281-Award 104 Public Law Board No. 1630-Award 11 Public Law Board No. 1622-Award 5 Public Law Board No. 1630-Award 5 Public Law Board No. 1630-Award 7 Public Law Board No. 1630-Award 5 Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 166 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2063 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2064 Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2059 Public Law Board No. 1316-Award 131 Public Law Board No. 1546-Award 4 Public Law Board No. 849-Award 11 Public Law Board No. 1396-Award 11 Public Law Board No. 1128-Award 7 Public Law Board No. 717-Award 294 Public Law Board No. 815-Award 105 Public Law Board No. 815-Award 108 Public Law Board No. 1347-Award 8 Public Law Board No. 1347-Award 14 Public Law Board No. 815-Award 93 Public Law Board No. 1333-Award 5 Public Law Board No. 1258-Award 5 Public Law Board No. 238-Award 187 Public Law Board No. 1207-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 1077-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 238-Award 158 Public Law Board No. 626-Award 126 Public Law Board No. 1014-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 815-Award 48 Public Law Board No. 815-Award 58 Public Law Board No. 815-Award 24 Public Law Board No. 815-Award 7 Public Law Board No. 815-Award 12 Public Law Board No. 3414-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 2003-Award 16 Public Law Board No. 2435-Award 2 Public Law Board No. 2973-Award 1 Public Law Board No. 7003-Award 16
Neutral: Robert G. Richter
Parties: UTU v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Award Date: 2007-05-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of engineer for removal of a 5-day suspension from personal record and payment for all lost time. Claimant was disicplined for allegedly failing to initial and record the times a main track switch was returned to normal in Dark/TWC territory. The Board finds that after reviewing a lengthy transcript that it lacks even one scintilla of evidence that the Claimant violated the Carrier's rules and the Carrier has failed to meet its burden of proof.
Neutral: Robert G. Richter
Parties: UTU v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Award Date: 2007-05-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Partially sustains claim of conductor by allowing payment for all time lost and modifying his personal record to reflect a reprimand instead of a suspension. Claimant was disciplined for failing to promptly stop train after being advised sparks were coming from one of the cars and failing a train inspection by crew members. Initially, Claimant was notified of sparks by a passing train and immediately stopped the train and had a crew on light engines inspect his train. Upon release of hand brakes on the involved car, the train proceeded on and was again notified by a passing train that sparks were coming from one of the cars. This time the Claimant notified the dispatcher that he was going to proceed until the train passed the hot box detector and then stop and inspect the train. The Claimant then discovered flat spots on one of the cars and set the car out. The Board finds that the Carrier has met its burden of proof on the violation of not promptly stopping the train, however, the Claimant did not violate the train inspection rule. The Board also notes that in as much as the crew was in contact with the dispatcher the discipline will be reduced to a reprimand. Organization’s concurrence and Carrier’s dissent attached.
Neutral: Don B. Hays
Parties: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. UTU
Award Date: 2007-05-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of conductor for removal of a 5-day suspension and pay for time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to place himself in a position to properly inspect a passing train. The Board notes contradictions in the testimony of the carrier manager who set up the efficiency test and sustains the claim on the basis of carrier's proof deficiency.
View Award
Neutral: Charles P. Fischbach
Parties: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. UTU
Award Date: 2007-02-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of trainman for removal of a 5-day suspension, which activated a 2-day overhead suspension, and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for violation of the carrier's Availability Standards Policy. Initially, the Board holds that Claimant was denied a fair and impartial investigation when the carrier's material witness testified by telephone thereby denying Claimant's representative the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in person. While this may not be an issue in some circumstances, as identified in the findings, here those circumstances are not present. Ordinarily, such procedural determination would require that the merits need not be addressed. However, the substantive merits here deserve scrutiny. In reaching the conclusion that Claimant violated the availability standards policy, no credence was given to the fact Claimant marked off sick with a legitimate illness and was taking medication that would have prevented his working due to the fact it was a narcotic. Under these circumstances, the carrier can not legitably hold such absences against the employee. It is incumbent upon the carrier to harmonize policy criteria with contractual rights on the issue of absenteeism vis-ŕ-vis the employee's obligation to perform and/or be available for service. Organization's concurrence and Carrier's dissent attached.
View Award
Neutral: Francis J. Domzalski
Parties: UTU v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Award Date: 2007-02-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of trainman for reinstatement to service and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for dismounting moving equipment in violation of the applicable safety rule. Carrier witnesses testified that while they did not actually see Claimant dismount, they said that they saw Claimant leave the locomotive cab, descend the ladder and observed him walking next to the train, all the while the train being in motion. The engineer testified that the train did, in fact, stop before he dismounted. Under the circumstances, it is held by the Board that carrier failed to meet its burden of proof and sustains this claim accordingly.
View Award
Neutral: M. David Vaugh
Parties: BNSF Railway Co. v. UTU
Award Date: 2007-02-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of brakeman for removal of the Level S 50-day suspension and pay for time lost, less outside earnings. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with a collision resulting in a derailment. Claimant was directing a shove from the lead car and calling car length distances to the engineer via radio transmission. The record shows that just prior to impact the radio transmissions became garbled and the engineer was unable to clearly understand the car lengths being called out. It was not until impact that the engineer reached for the brake valve. Upon review of the entire record the Board finds that the carrier failed to prove by substantial creditable evidence that Claimant was guilty of the charges against him. Organization's dissent to the offset of back pay by outside earnings attached.
View Award
Neutral: Lynette A. Ross
Parties: UTU v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Award Date: 2007-02-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of trainman for removal of a 5-day suspension and pay for all time lost, including pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for failing to use positive identification as required by the rules when communicating with his engineer. The charges were brought against Claimant because of the radio transmission overhead by a Trainmaster. In sustaining the claim the Board finds that carrier failed in its burden of proof, the engineer of the assignment was absent from the investigation and while the foreman testified that he, too, failed to use positive identification on the date in question he was not charged with any rule violation.
View Award
Neutral: Lynette A. Ross
Parties: UTU v. CSXT Transportation Inc.
Award Date: 2007-02-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of trainman for reinstatement to service but without pay for time lost. Claimant was dismissed for failing to comply with the carrier's Weekend Availability Policy. The Board finds that carrier failed to meet its burden of proof in that part of the time under investigation was prior to the implementation of the above Policy. However, in denying that part of the claim for time lost, the Board finds that Claimant laid off one weekend alleging illness, but never produced any evidence that he was under doctor's care as he contended. This, coupled with his abysmal disciplinary record at the time of this offense, precludes the Board from ordering a make-whole remedy. Organization's dissent attached.
View Award
Neutral: Lynette A. Ross
Parties: UTU v. CSXT Transportation Inc.
Award Date: 2007-02-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of conductor for removal of dismissal and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed for insubordination and conduct unbecoming when he refused to follow instructions of a Trainmaster. The Board finds nothing in the record to support the charges against Claimant and therefore, the carrier failed to meet its required burden of proof. After discussing the handling of a prior time slip that went unresolved, Trainmaster gave the Claimant the ultimatum of either taking the train or marking off. Claimant elected to mark off and left the property without incident. The Board holds that Claimant was not insubordinate as he did not fail to comply with a direct order, rather exercised his option - albeit not what the Trainmaster preferred. Second, there was an absence of unbecoming conduct as Claimant left the property without incident.
View Award
Neutral: Lynette A. Ross
Parties: UTU v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Award Date: 2007-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Synopsis: Sustains claim of engineer for removal of a 30-day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for insubordination and failure to properly perform his duties resulting in delay to the assignment when the crew outlawed under the Hours of Service Act. The Board finds that the carrier failed in its burden that Claimant disregarded direct orders of a supervisor in that those orders were not so clear as to constitute insubordination for non-compliance. Further, Claimant exercised care in the performance of his duties and there is no evidence of willful delay.
View Award
Neutral: Robert G. Richter
Parties: UTU v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Award Date: 2007-01-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of conductor for reinstatement to service and pay for time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to stop his train for an absolute red signal. Claimant was on the radio writing down orders from the dispatcher and Maintenance of Way foreman and bent over to look out the cab window. Upon seeing the red signal he took immediate action to put the train in emergency, but the train ran the red signal. On appeal of the discipline by the local chairperson, the carrier Superintendent referred to an additional rule claimant allegedly violated but with which he was not charged. The Board holds that the carrier failed to meet its burden of proving the rule violation and sustains this claim accordingly. Organization's concurring opinion and carrier's dissent attached.
View Award
Neutral: Lynette A. Ross
Parties: UTU vs. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Award Date: 2007-01-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of conductor for removal of a 15-day actual suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for violation of safety rules resulting in a personal injury. The Board finds no evidence in the record to support the carrier’s rule violation determination. Rather, it finds that carrier witnesses testified that their investigation of the injury produced no such evidence. Of particular note, the neutral takes carrier to task for the tenacious questioning of Claimant and finding it to be unnecessary and unwarranted. Such action may even give rise to a due process breach. In view of the carrier witnesses testimony, such dogged questioning of the employee on the apparent chance that he might eventually give inconsistent or self-incriminating testimony was uncalled for and should not be repeated in future investigations.
View Award
Neutral: Robert G. Richter
Parties: UTU v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Award Date: 2006-12-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of conductor for reinstatement to service and allows pay for all time lost. Claimant, operating a remote control locomotive, was charged with violating a rule requiring the operation of moving equipment at a speed so as to allow proper stopping of the movement when a switch was run through. Upon review of the record the Board finds not one iota of testimony as to train speed when the incident occurred. While Claimant may have been guilty of a rule violation, it certainly was not the rule with which he was charged.
View Award
Neutral: Robert G. Richter
Parties: UTU v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Award Date: 2006-11-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of foreman for reinstatement to service and pay for all time lost. Claimant was charged with and dismissed for theft of a computer mouse from the Belt Railway of Chicago crew room. Claimant was also arrested for the theft and found not guilty of such by the Circuit Court of Cook County. The court noted that Claimant was properly identified on the BRC security tape, he was seen putting something in his case, but that it was not possible to see what was being put in his case. Noting that this Board is not held to the threshold of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the Board finds that with the contradictions about the type of mouse in question and since it can not be determined that Claimant took the mouse, this claim must be sustained as carrier has not met its burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: Don B. Hays
Parties: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. UTU
Award Date: 2006-11-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of conductor for removal of a 5-day overhead suspension and pay for time lost. Claimant was charged for stopping to eat in excess of the time permitted by the applicable rule and incurring excessive taxi expense. Upon review of the facts and testimony of the parties, the Board finds that the carrier's investigation is far less than what this Board has come to expect. The claim is sustained because of a lack of preponderant evidence offered to prove the carrier's allegations.
View Award
Neutral: Don B. Hays
Parties: CSXT v. UTU
Award Date: 2006-07-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of yardman for removal of 30-day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for his alleged mounting of moving equipment as perceived by a Road Foreman of Engines. The only witness for the carrier was the Road Foreman, while the organization called claimant’s crew members who testified to a material different set of occurrences. Give such proof of deficiency and the generally recognized “presumption of innocence” concept, the Board must sustain the claim.
View Award
Neutral: John L. Easley
Parties: UTU v. Union Pacific
Award Date: 2006-07-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for reinstatement to service and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed for violation of the carrier’s Attendance Policy. The Board finds that the carrier failed in its burden to prove claimant’s violation. Moreover, the record is void of any meeting with the claimant to discuss his absences from work, as required by the Attendance Policy, and claimant produced unchallenged medical documentation to support his absences.
View Award
Neutral: Barry E. Simon
Parties: BLET v. Union Pacific
Award Date: 2006-06-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for reinstatement to service and pay for all time lost, less deduction of outside earnings during the period of dismissal. Claimant was dismissed for dishonesty in reporting a personal injury. Carrier contends that the injury did not occur on duty, as Claimant contended, but at some place other than Carrier’s property. The Board finds although Claimant waited two days to report the on-duty injury, the Carrier failed in its burden of proof at to Claimant’s dishonesty.
View Award
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU v. Florida East Coast
Award Date: 2006-05-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of thirty (30) demerits and five (5) day suspension from record and pay for all time lost. Claimant was charged with failing to observe and give audible warning, as required, to roadway workers near track. The Board finds that Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof that the Engineer observed, or should have observed, roadway workers near track in time to give audible warning to them.
View Award
Neutral: Barry E. Simon
Parties: BLET v. MidSouth Rail Corp. (KCS)
Award Date: 2006-04-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for reinstatement to service with pay for time lost, but not to include any time Claimant was unable to work due to suspension or revocation of his engineer license and outside earnings. Claimant was dismissed for failure to properly inspect his train. The Board finds that the Carrier failed to establish “just cause” as to Claimant’s guilt and Carrier further failed to identify the specific rules of which Claimant was to have violated.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU v. CSX Transportation, Inc
Award Date: 2000-06-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of engineer for removal of a 30-day suspension and pay for time lost on the basis that a procedural error was committed by the carrier when no transcript of investigation was furnished. Carrier contended that Claimant was not entitled to back pay as he was unable to exercise seniority due to the suspension of his FRA certification license. Organization argued that Claimant was not restricted from exercising his train service seniority during this period and entitled to those lost earnings. The Board held in its interpretation of the award that Claimant should have been permitted to exercise his train service seniority under Article XIII of the 1985 UTU agreement and reaffirms the time lost claim. The Interpretation and Carrier's dissent is attached.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: BLE vs. Boston and Maine Corporation
Award Date: 1987-09-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of forty-eight (48) demerits and fifteen (15) day suspension and pay for time lost. Claimant was disciplined for violation of operating rules when his train allegedly passed a red stop signal. Both the Claimant and the Conductor testified that the signal was green. Based upon the testimony of record, the Board finds the testimony to be insufficient to support the charge.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: BLE vs. Boston and Maine Corp.
Award Date: 1987-03-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in removal of discipline and any pay for time lost when charged for excessive speed and related derailment. Neutral sustains on findings that speed tapes were not authenticated evidence since they were not attested to by the claimant nor did carrier produce as a witness the machinist who removed the tapes from the locomotive.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1985-02-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Fireman for removal of a 15-day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to accept a call for service in violation of the Operating Rule. Upon review of the evidence and facts of record, the Board holds it improper to discipline claimant for violation of the cited rule.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern Former STL-SF
Award Date: 1984-09-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of what amounted to a 74 day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to properly supervise his brakeman which resulted in a collision. The Board finds from the evidence of record that Claimant had good reason to rely on the ability of the brakeman and nothing to show that he was guilty of the charge against him.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern - Former FTW&D
Award Date: 1984-09-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Car Retarder Operator for removal of a 30-day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with a sideswipe accident. The Board finds that the Carrier has failed in its burden to prove the charges against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific Eastern Lines
Award Date: 1984-09-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for reinstatement to service with all rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed from service for violation of operating rules in connection with a personal injury which resulted while he was throwing a switch. Carrier concluded that Claimant was careless in the performance of his duties and was dishonest in claiming an on-duty personal injury which did not occur as Claimant contends. The Board finds no evidence of record to support the conclusion reached by the Carrier and the dismissal must be set aside.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific - Eastern Lines
Award Date: 1984-09-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakemen for removal of 15-day suspensions and pay for all time lost, including time spent attending investigation. Claimants were disciplined for violation of operating rules when they ran through a switch and fouled the main line causing delay to expedited trains. The Board finds from the evidence of record that Claimants were following the instructions given them by the conductor and therefore are absolved from responsibility under the cited rule.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific Eastern Lines
Award Date: 1984-09-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Conductor by reducing a 30-day suspension to 25 days and sustains claim of Brakemen for removal of 15-day suspensions with pay for all time lost. Claimants were disciplined for failure to comply with Carrier bulletin pertaining to procedures when confronted with hot boxes and failure to properly observe a hot box detector display board. The Board finds that Carrier's conclusion that Claimants violated all parts of the bulletin cannot be supported by the evidence. There is no evidence of record that Claimant brakemen failed to comply with any portion of the bulletin and Claimant conductor shall have his discipline reduced because Carrier failed to given any specific weight to any portion of the charge.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1984-09-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for removal of a 10-day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to properly secure an engine which resulted in it rolling out of the track and sideswiping another train. The Board holds that the discipline must be set aside because the Carrier provided no chocks for the purpose of securing the engine and it provided no explanation of exactly what was expected of Claimant under the circumstances.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1984-09-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for removal of 20 demerits from his personal record. Claimant was disciplined for failure to place himself after being bumped. The Board holds that the discipline must be set aside because Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-08-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a 5-day deferred suspension. Claimant was disciplined for safety rule violation when he was observed mounting the trailing end of a locomotive instead of the lead end as required. The Board notes that the rule contains the words "if practical," and based upon the evidence of record the Board finds that Claimant did not intentionally defy the safety rule. He simply deemed it more practical to mount the unit at the rear and Carrier has not met its burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-08-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for removal of a 30-day suspension and pay for time lost, but denies claim of another Brakeman for same. Claimants were disciplined for violation of Rule "G" when beer was found in the freezer on their caboose. The Board finds that the evidence is sufficient only to support discipline for the one brakeman although all three (3) Claimants may be equally guilty.
View Award
Neutral: C. Robert Roadley
Parties: UTU-E vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1984-08-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of 45 demerits from his personal record. Claimant here involved is also involved in Award No. 1 and in this case he was cited for violation of operating rules when he moved his engine without receiving signals to do so. The Board finds that the Carrier failed to establish sufficient evidence to support the charges against Claimant and the discipline assessed must be set aside.
View Award
Neutral: Robert A. Franden
Parties: UTU vs. Port Terminal Railroad Association
Award Date: 1984-06-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of a 10-day suspension and pay for all time lost, including time spent attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for failure to keep a proper lookout which resulted in the running through of a plant gate. The Board holds that the Carrier has not met its burden of proof as to the charges against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern - Former FTW&D
Award Date: 1984-06-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for removal of a 15-day suspension and pay for all time lost, including pay for attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for failure to properly secure cars in order to prevent them from rolling out of a track which resulted in a derailment. The Board finds nothing in the record to support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant was negligent or that he did not exercise due care.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern - Former FTW&D
Award Date: 1984-06-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switch Foreman for removal of a 15-day suspension and pay for time lost, including pay for attending investigation, on the basis of the findings contained in Award No. 132 of this Board.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-06-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a 10-day deferred suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for violation of safety rules which resulted in a personal injury. The Board finds insufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by Carrier and the claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland
Award Date: 1984-06-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Yard Helper for removal of reprimand from his service record, but denies claim for pay for time spent attending investigation. Claimant was charged with carelessness which resulted in the destruction of a portable radio that was entrusted to his care. The Board finds from the evidence of record that Carrier has not met its burden of proof as to the charge against Claimant. With regard to the claim for time lost, the Board holds that Organization has offered no evidence that Claimant was actually required to lose time from his assignment to attend the investigation.
View Award
Neutral: I. M. Lieberman
Parties: UTU vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1984-05-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of 30 demerits from his personal record. Claimant was disciplined for violation of safety rules and failure to promptly fill out a personal injury report. The Board finds no evidence to support the alleged safety rule violations on the part of Claimant. Further, the Board finds that Carrier was aware of the fact that Claimant suffered the injury and assisted him in obtaining medical attention. While the Board feels that it is imperative that employees promptly file personal injury reports, Claimant's tardiness was not sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1984-05-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman and Helper for removal of a 15-day deferred suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimants were disciplined for violation of operating rules which resulted in the derailment of a caboose. The Board finds no evidence of rule violation on the part of Claimants and the discipline must be set aside.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1984-05-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Head Brakeman and sustains claims of Conductor and Rear Brakeman for removal of 20-day suspensions and pay for time lost, including pay for attending investigation. Claimants were disciplined for failure to stop at a stop board in advance of a BN crossing. Holding in accordance with awards of other Public Law Boards involving identical claims of engineer and fireman of Claimant's crew, the Board finds sufficient evidence to support the discipline of the head brakeman. However, since the conductor and rear brakeman were in the caboose, the Board finds no support for a conclusion that they had any responsibility for the violation.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1984-05-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of Brakemen for removal of 30-day deferred suspensions from their personal record and pay for time lost. Claimants were disciplined for their responsibility in connection with allowing their train to be operated in excess of the maximum allowable speed. The Board finds from the evidence and testimony of record that Carrier failed in its burden of proof as to the charges against Claimants.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern Former FTW&D
Award Date: 1984-05-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Helper for removal of a 5-day suspension and pay for time lost, including four (4) hours for attending investigation. This is a companion claim to that decided by Award No. 127 and Claimant was also charged with accident responsibility. The Board finds from the facts of record that Claimant was tying down a car in another track at the time of the accident and Carrier has failed in its burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake and Ohio
Award Date: 1984-05-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for removal of a 10-day deferred suspension. Claimants were disciplined for failure to detect a derailed car in their train which ultimately resulted in the derailment of four (4) additional cars. The Board finds that Carrier has not established that Claimants could have reasonably observed track damage on the night in question and that Claimants were negligent in the performance of their duties.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-E vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-04-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Fireman for removal of a 10-day deferred suspension and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for violation of Safety Rule when he sustained a personal injury while attempting to mount his locomotive. The Board finds that the Carrier failed to prove that Claimant was in violation of the cited rule and this claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-E vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-04-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a 10-day deferred suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for operating his train at an excessive speed so as to allow a brakeman to safety mount the engine resulting in a personal injury. Upon review of the record, the Board fails to find evidence which would be sufficient for the Carrier to discipline the Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-E vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-04-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a 15-day deferred suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to properly inspect his train which resulted in derailment due to a hot box. The Board find insufficient evidence to support Carrier's conclusion of Operating Rule violations on the part of Claimant and this claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1984-04-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of Engineer, Fireman, Conductor and Brakemen for removal of suspensions and pay for all time lost. Claimants were disciplined for violation of restricted speed order. The Board finds evidence that Carrier failed to post the General Order at Claimants' initial terminal on the date in question and Carrier failed to prove Claimants had access to the General Order before the fact.
View Award
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU-C,T&Y vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Award Date: 1984-04-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Conductor by reducing discipline of 30 demerits to 20 demerits. Claimant was disciplined for failure to make a walking inspection of his train while stopped and failure to make a rolling inspection of a passing train. The Board finds sufficient evidence that Claimant failed to make a walking inspection of his train, or direct his crew members to do so. However, there is insufficient evidence to support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant failed to inspect the passing train or direct crew members. Therefore, the discipline is reduced accordingly.
View Award
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western - Lake Region
Award Date: 1984-03-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of a five day deferred suspension. Claimant was disciplined for violation of Safety Rule when he was observed by supervisory officials "standing on caboose, leaning against door with no secure hold." The Board finds from the transcript that Carrier has failed in its burden to prove the charges against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western - Lake Region
Award Date: 1984-03-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Yardman for reinstatement to service, but without pay for time lost. Claimant was dismissed from service, following an investigation held in absentia, for being off in excess of 30 days without written leave of absence from proper authority. The Board has reviewed the record in its entirety and holds that the Carrier has failed to fully substantiate the basis for its charge against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Washington Terminal
Award Date: 1984-03-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of a 10-day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for violation of Safety Rule which resulted in his sustaining a personal injury. The Board finds from the record that the Carrier has failed to prove that Claimant was in violation of any rules and the mere fact that an accident occurred does not mean that Claimant was careless or negligent.
View Award
Neutral: Herbert L. Marx, Jr.
Parties: UTU vs. Long Island Railroad
Award Date: 1984-03-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for reinstatement to service with pay for time lost, less time she was on paid sick leave. Claimant was disciplined for falsifying her employment application and medical history record. The Board thoroughly examines each point raised by the Carrier in support of its decision to dismiss Claimant and holds that the Carrier has not proven - in relation to the specified items in the charges - "false statements" or "falsification or misrepresentation" by the Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1984-02-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainmen for removal of 10 and 20 demerits and pay for all time lost. Claimants were disciplined for their responsibility in connection with a derailment and operating rule violation. The Board holds that Carrier did not carry its burden of proof, the cited rule did not fix the specific violation and Carrier did not produce other crew members at the investigation who had knowledge of the accident.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1984-02-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for removal of 20 demerits from his personal record and pay for time lost attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for violation of operating rules involving failure to be available for call. The Board finds, from a review of the record that Carrier has not proved its case against Claimant and the discipline must be set aside.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1984-02-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of 30 demerits and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with an injury sustained by a trainman attempting to make a running switch. The Board finds from the evidence of record that Carrier has failed to prove a violation of any of the rule violations with which claimant was charged.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1984-02-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Engineer for reducing a 10-day suspension to 5 days and allowing pay for time lost in excess thereof. The Board finds from the evidence of record that claimant was guilty of operating his train in excess of the maximum allowable speed. However, Carrier based the discipline on violation of additional rules as well and the Board finds no evidence to support the additional rule violations.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern (FtW&D)
Award Date: 1984-02-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engine Foreman for removal of letter of censure from his personal record and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with an accident. Upon review of the facts of record, the Board holds that Carrier failed in its burden of proof to prove any negligence or rule violations on the part of Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1983-12-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of a six (6) month suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was charged with violation of Rule "G" and dismissed from service. The Board finds a conflict of evidence in that Carrier officials believed Claimant was under the influence of intoxicants, however, a medical statement furnished by Claimant revealed that a blood alcohol test, administered shortly after the incident on the property, showed "none detected." The Board finds that Carrier failed to establish Claimant's guilt by the evidence presented and there is no support for the discipline.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-12-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of yardman for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with the train passing a stop and stay signal. Upon review of the facts of record, the Board finds no responsibility on the part of claimant for rule violation.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac
Award Date: 1983-12-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of discipline, pay for all time lost and the monetary equivalent of lost 1981 productivity shares. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with a rough coupling. The Board finds insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-11-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of two (2) Brakemen for removal of reprimand from their personal record and pay for time lost attending the investigation. Claimants were disciplined for failing to have the current Book of Operating Rules and Timetable in their possession during their tour of duty. The Board finds that, although Claimants did not have the above items in their possession, there are extenuating circumstances which must mitigate in favor of Claimants and the evidence is insufficient to support the discipline.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal
Award Date: 1983-11-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Switchman by reducing discipline of dismissal to a four (4) month suspension and allowing pay for time lost in excess thereof, subject to deduction of outside earnings. Claimant was dismissed for violation of Safety Rules resulting in a personal injury and the additional charge of being an unsafe and accident prone employee because of having sustained twelve (12) other on-duty injuries in an eleven and one-half (11-1/2) year period. The Board finds clear evidence to establish that Claimant was guilty of Safety Rules in sustaining the injury. However, Carrier has failed to prove the charges as to Claimant being accident prone and permanent dismissal is unjustified.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1983-10-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of 30 demerits from his personal record. Claimant was disciplined for violation of Operating Rules pertaining to the safe movement of his train. Upon review of the facts the Board finds insufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by Carrier.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1983-10-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of 30 demerits from his personal record and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined because of flat spots found on the wheels of his locomotive which required the unit to be taken out of service. The Board holds in accordance with a prior award of this Board that Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof and the record will not support the discipline.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1983-10-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of 30 demerits from his personal record and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with flat spots found on the wheels of his locomotive. The Board finds that the record does not reflect by clear and convincing proof that claimant was in violation of the cited rule and claimant was not negligent in the handling of his engine.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific (EL)
Award Date: 1983-10-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of 30 demerits from his personal record and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for failure to report for duty. The Board finds that the Carrier failed in its burden to prove that Claimant was called from the extra board to protect service and failed to report therefor.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific (EL)
Award Date: 1983-10-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of two (2) Brakemen for removal of 45 demerits and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimants were disciplined for failure to properly perform their duties when their train failed to stop short of a signal. The Board finds a conflict in testimony which must mitigate in favor of the claimants and the Carrier failed in its burden to prove the charges against Claimants.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific (EL)
Award Date: 1983-10-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of 30 demerits from his personal record, pay for time lost attending investigation, and 100 miles deadhead at through freight rate each date required to attend the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for failure to properly perform his duties to insure the safe movement of the train when the train failed to stop short of a stop signal. The Board finds from the testimony that Carrier failed to carry the burden of proof as to the specific charge against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: C. A. Peacock
Parties: UTU vs. Manufacturers Railway
Award Date: 1983-07-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of discipline and pay for all time lost, including pay for attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for sleeping on duty. The Board finds insufficient evidence to support the conclusion reached by the Carrier. Carrier's dissent and Organization's concurring opinion attached.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1983-07-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of a 20-day deferred suspension and pay for time lost attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with a personal injury sustained while dismounting from the caboose. The Board holds that Carrier failed in its burden to prove the charges against Claimant and the claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1983-07-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of a 31-day suspension and pay for time lost. Claimant was disciplined for missing calls from the extra board. The Board finds a complete failure of proof by the Carrier as to Claimant's missing calls and this claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a five (5) day deferred suspension and pay for time lost attending the investigation. Claimant was charged with responsibility in connection with a derailment caused by slack action. The Board finds from the evidence of record that the derailment occurred at a location where the switch, frog and frog guard were replaced four (4) days after the accident and they had been scheduled to be replaced prior thereto. Further, there is insufficient evidence to determine that the derailment was caused by slack action.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a ten (10) day deferred suspension and pay for time lost attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for going between cars to adjust a drawbar when the cars were not a safe distance apart in violation of the safety rule. Upon review of the transcript of record the Board finds that the Carrier has not established Claimant's guilt by way of sufficient probative evidence. Under the circumstances, the discipline must be set aside.
View Award
Neutral: John J. Gaherin
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1983-06-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for reinstatement to service with seniority and other rights unimpaired, and pay for all time lost less the usual and customary offsets pursuant to the practices on this property. Claimant was dismissed for violation of Rule "G". The Board, upon review of all the evidence and facts of record, finds that the Carrier has failed in its burden to prove the charges against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: John J. Gaherin
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1983-06-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for reinstatement to service with seniority unimpaired and pay for all time lost, less the usual and customary offset applicable on this property. Claimant was dismissed from service for violation of Rule "G" during his tour of duty as a Passenger Brakeman. Based upon thorough review of all the testimony and facts of record, the Board finds that Carrier has not met its burden of proof as to the charges against Claimant and this claim is therefore sustained.
View Award
Neutral: John J. Gaherin
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1983-06-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a 30-day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for violation of safety rules resulting in a personal injury while attempting to "swing on" a moving caboose. The Board finds, from a review of the record and testimony, that Carrier has not met its burden of proof as to the rules violation.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1983-06-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a 30-day suspension, which activated a previous 10-day deferred suspension, and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for responsibility for sustaining a personal injury while riding in a locomotive. The Board finds no evidence of rule violation on the part of Claimant, nor any substantial evidence to support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant was negligent.
View Award
Neutral: C. A. Peacock
Parties: UTU vs. Manufacturers Railway
Award Date: 1983-06-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for reinstatement to service and pay for all time lost, including time lost attending investigation. This is a companion claim to that decided in Award No. 7 and this claim is sustained in accordance with the findings contained therein.
View Award
Neutral: C. A. Peacock
Parties: UTU vs. Manufacturers Railway
Award Date: 1983-06-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman for removal of discipline and pay for time lost, including pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for entering into a verbal confrontation with the Yardmaster. The Board finds insufficient evidence to support the conclusion of the Carrier. Carrier's dissent and Organization's concurring opinion attached.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1983-05-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for reinstatement to service with all rights unimpaired, pay for all time lost, and pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was dismissed for failure to properly perform his duties when he did not detect a derailed car in his train which subsequently caused 18 other cars to derail. The Board finds that the weather was foggy and rainy on the night in question and visibility was poor. Further, Carrier failed in its burden to prove that Claimant failed to properly perform his duties.
View Award
Neutral: Dana E. Eischen
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern RR Co.
Award Date: 1983-05-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a ten (10) day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to protect his assignment. The Board, following review of all the evidence and testimony, finds that Carrier has failed in its burden of proof as to the specific charges placed against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Dana E. Eischen
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern RR Co.
Award Date: 1983-05-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a five (5) day suspension and pay for time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to properly protect his assignment. The record shows that Claimant accepted a call to report at 11:55 p.m., but he did not report until 12:35 a.m., at which time he marked off sick with the crew caller. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that Carrier failed to prove Claimant was guilty of failing to protect his assignment and that his absence was caused by other than a physically incapacitating illness.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1983-05-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of a 60-day suspension and pay for all time lost, plus time spent attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for violation of Rule 'G". The evidence establishes that Claimant was on vacation and not subject to duty on the date this incident occurred on Company property. However, it is apparent that Claimant used bad judgement in being on Company property after having consumed alcohol although he did not show the signs of drunkenness. In view of all the facts, the Board holds that there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Claimant was under the influence of alcohol and this claim is sustained.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1983-05-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of a 60-day suspension and pay for time lost, plus time spent attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for violation of Rule "G" when found under the influence of a drug while on duty. The Board finds, however, that there are too many other possible explanations for Claimant's behavior on the date in question and Carrier did not produce sufficient credible evidence to support this very serious charge.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern Railroad Company - (StL-SF)
Award Date: 1983-04-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of a sixty (60) day deferred suspension and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for delaying his assignment and tying up without completing work as instructed. The Board finds that the record does not support a finding of guilt.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern RR (FW&D)
Award Date: 1983-04-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman for reinstatement to service with all rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost, plus pay for attending investigation. Claimant was dismissed for his responsibility in connection with a derailment when a cut of cars rolled out of a track and derailed due to insufficient hand brakes being set. Evidence establishes that Claimant properly instructed the field person to tie down the track, but due to her small size she was unable to set enough pressure on the brakes. While the Board acknowledges that Claimant has a poor past record, that alone does not establish his guilt in the instant case. There is no evidence produced by Carrier to show what else Claimant could have done to prevent this accident.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern RR (FW&D)
Award Date: 1983-04-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a ten (10) day suspension and pay for time lost, plus pay for attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in failing to comply with instructions and causing delay to another train. The Board finds no evidence that Claimant was aware of any instructions given by the Yardmaster and Carrier has failed to carry its burden of proof in this case.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1983-04-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakemen for removal of a seven (7) day deferred suspension and pay for any time lost. Claimants were disciplined for failure to fulfill the obligation of their assignment by taking an excessive coffee break. The Board holds that Carrier failed to establish Claimants' guilt by probative evidence and further, the notice of investigation was defective in that the language was too general.
View Award
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Gulf RR
Award Date: 1983-03-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for removal of a ten (10) day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined, following investigation, for failure to call attention to either the Engineer or Conductor to apparent rule violations. Initially, the Board finds that the notice of investigation did not set forth the charge for which Claimant was disciplined. Further, the record of investigation does not contain any evidence that any of the crew members, including Claimant, were questioned concerning this failure. Therefore, the Board finds that Carrier did not meet its burden of proof as to the charges against Claimant and this claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific (EL)
Award Date: 1983-03-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Fireman for removal of a 30-day suspension and pay for all time lost, including pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for violation of Operating Rules when he failed to report to proper authorities that his engineer was under the influence of alcohol. The Board finds from a review of all the facts and evidence that Carrier failed in its burden of proof to show by a preponderance of evidence that Claimant was guilty of willful disregard or negligent in protecting the interests of the Carrier.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E vs. Missouri Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1983-02-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for reinstatement to service and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed following investigation for violation of Rule "G" and was later reinstated after some five (5) months out of service. The Board allows pay for time lost and finds that Carrier did not meet its burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1983-02-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a 30-day deferred suspension and pay for time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to protect his assignment. The Board finds, from a review of the evidence, that Claimant called the crew caller several hours before his crew would have been ordered to report and attempted to lay-off sick. The Caller told him he could be off and another employee would be called in his place. There is no testimony as to whether Claimant was called for his assignment, whether he responded or failed to respond, or whether he refused or simply failed to appear. Because of the lack of substantial evidence, this claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1983-02-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of a 60-day suspension and pay for time lost. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with an accident resulting from a flat car colliding with a box car causing damage to both. Claimant testified that he set the flat car in the clear and set hand brakes as required. A period of approximately nine (9) hours elapsed between the time the car was placed on the track and the accident was discovered and numerous other crews had unrestricted access to the track in question. In view of this undisputed testimony, the Board finds it unreasonable for Carrier to conclude solely on the basis of theoretical opinion that it must have been Claimant who was responsible.
View Award
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy, Co. Lake Region
Award Date: 1983-02-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for reinstatement to service with seniority and other rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost, less any compensation or earnings Claimant otherwise received while being out of service. Claimant was withheld from service pending investigation on charges of insubordination, using profane and abusive language toward a trainmaster, and conduct unbecoming an employee. Following investigation, Claimant was dismissed from service. The Board finds, from review of the entire record, that there is insufficient evidence to hold that Claimant was guilty as charged.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company
Award Date: 1983-02-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for reinstatement to service with seniority and other rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost. Pursuant to the investigation, Claimant was dismissed for violation of Rule "G". Two (2) supervisors talked to Claimant during his tour of duty and determined they could smell alcohol on his breath. Claimant admitted having a drink before reporting for duty. The Board finds that Rule "G" on this property is less restrictive than the rule on most other railroads and it certainly does not prohibit the use of alcohol by an off-duty employee. Since there is no evidence that the employee was using alcohol while he was on duty, the Board has no alternative but to sustain the claim.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. NKP-WLE
Award Date: 1983-02-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of a five (5) day deferred suspension. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with a personal injury sustained when he slipped and fell on snow covered ice. The Board finds that Carrier failed to establish sufficient evidence to show that Claimant failed to do what he should have done to avoid the accident.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1983-01-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Brakeman by reducing discipline of dismissal to a 5-day suspension and allowing pay for time lost in excess thereof. Claimant was charged with violation of Rule "G" and failure to protect his assignment. Claimant failed to respond to a call while at Carrier's lodging facility at his away-from-home terminal. Concerned that something might be wrong with Claimant, Carrier officials went to his room and found him to be in an intoxicated state. he was then removed from service for Rule "G" violation and failure to protect his assignment. The Board finds that the evidence does not support a conclusion of Rule "G" violation as the Board cannot agree that Claimant was subject to duty within the meaning of the rule under the circumstances of this case. The record does support the conclusion that he failed to protect his assignment and in view of only one entry of prior discipline for this offense in seven (7) years of service, the Board finds a 5-day suspension to be appropriate. Carrier's dissent attached.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co. - T&L Lines
Award Date: 1983-01-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a fifteen (15) day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for violation of operating rules in that he failed to give signals to the engineer resulting in passing an interlocking signal displaying a stop indication. The Board, upon review of all the facts and testimony of record, finds that Carrier did not meet its burden of proof in support of its charges against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Award Date: 1983-01-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of a ten (10) day actual suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for violation of operating rules for failure to observe the position of derail switch points and running through same, causing damage thereto. The Board finds that the only evidence that Claimant was at fault is circumstantial and that too many questions regarding the incident are left unresolved. Under these circumstances, the evidence is insufficient for Carrier to find Claimant guilty of rule violation.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: BLE vs. Burlington Northern (C&S)
Award Date: 1983-01-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a 10-day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for operating his train in excess of the maximum allowable speed. The record shows that the bulletin reducing the maximum speed was never posted at Claimant's home or away-from-home terminal, as well as other discrepancies. The Board finds, in view of all the evidence, that Carrier failed to prove the charges against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Coast Lines
Award Date: 1983-01-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engine Foreman for removal of twenty (20) demerits assessed his personal record. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with an accident which occurred in an area where his crew was working. Carrier determined Claimant's guilt through the process of elimination. That is, a car was knocked off blocks in the area of Claimant's assignment and no other crew was in the area, except Claimant, when the car was last inspected and the time the incident was reported. Therefore, Carrier concluded that Claimant must be guilty. The Board finds that this claim must be sustained because Carrier failed to meet the required burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Coast Lines
Award Date: 1983-01-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of twenty (20) demerits assessed his personal record. The facts in this case are identical to those set forth in Award No. 20 of this Board, and this claim is sustained on the basis of the findings contained therein.
View Award
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: BLE vs. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1983-01-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer and Fireman for removal of a fifteen (15) day deferred suspension and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimants were disciplined following investigation for their responsibility in connection with the derailment of a car they were attempting to couple onto. Carrier contends the accident was caused because Claimants made the coupling at excessive speed. The Board finds that the evidence of record does not support the charges against Claimants.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-12-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a five (5) day actual suspension and pay for all time lost, including time lost for being available for or attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with a derailment which occurred while attempting to set out a bad order car. Based upon review of the transcript of record, the Board finds that Carrier failed to establish supportive evidence of rule violation.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-12-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension, pay for all time lost, pay for attending the investigation, and loss of any and all fringe benefits. Claimant was disciplined for failing to comply with operating rules. The Board finds that the Carrier failed to carry its burden of proof as to the rule violation and this fact is evidenced by testimony contained in the investigation transcript.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & Illinois Midland
Award Date: 1982-12-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of thirty (30) demerits from his personal record and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was charged with responsibility in connection with an accident while attempting to execute a "Dutch Drop". Several procedural objections raised by the Organization are rejected by the Board. The Board finds that Carrier failed in its burden to prove that Claimant failed to do something that he otherwise should have done that would have prevented the collision.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Baltimore & Ohio RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-11-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension, pay for attending investigation and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for "...giving false information concerning the whereabouts of Engineer to officers of the Railroad Company...". The record reflects Carrier's conclusion of Claimant's guilt was broader than the narrow and specific charge placed against him and it is not supported by the transcript. Therefore, the Board finds that Carrier failed in its burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-10-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Conductor for removal of a five (5) day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was charged with violation of operating rules which resulted in a derailment. Operating rules cited by Carrier refer to kicking cars off a curve or intangent track. The Board finds not one shred of evidence in the transcript to support any such fact. To the contrary, all of the testimony was that the cars had been kicked on straight tracks.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-10-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for removal of discipline from his service record and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined for violation of safety rules in connection with a personal injury sustained when he tripped over a piece of cross tie while attempting to mount the side ladder on a box car. The Board finds that Carrier failed to establish by clear and convincing proof that Claimant violated any of the cited rules.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co
Award Date: 1982-10-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for removal of fifteen (15) demerits from his service record and pay for time lost attending investigation. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to contact Claimant by telephone to notify him of the calling time of his regular assignment. At the investigation, Claimant produced evidence that his phone was out of order on the date in question and that the ringer had been replaced by a repairman. The Board finds that there is an absence of clear and convincing proof that Claimant violated the rule.
View Award
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU-T&E vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1982-09-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a 10-day suspension and pay for all time lost, including pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for violation of Operating Rules and responsibility in connection with a derailment. Upon review of all the evidence and testimony of record, the Board holds that Carrier failed to prove Claimant's responsibility for the derailment.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Georgia Railroad
Award Date: 1982-09-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of a fifteen (15) day actual suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was charged with operating rule violation relating to a rough coupling and damage to an engine. The Board finds that the evidence established by the record will not support the discipline assessed.
View Award
Neutral: E. T. Snyder
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-08-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a ten (10) day deferred suspension from his personal record and pay for time lost attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with a derailment. Carrier contends that the derailment was caused by a run-in of slack from the hind end, thus causing the wheels of one of the derailed cars to lift off the track. Organization argues that poor track conditions caused the derailment and the track condition is evidence by a slow order in the vicinity of derailment. The Board finds that the Carrier failed to show by probative evidence that the run-in of slack did in fact cause the derailment and this claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Missouri Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-08-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a sixty (60) day actual suspension and pay for time lost. Claimant was head brakeman when a crane boom, located on the 13th car from the engine, swung loose causing damage to 19 signals covering a distance of approximately 48 miles. Claimant and other crew members were unaware of the situation until advised by the Engineer of a passing train that the boom was loose. The Board notes that the incident took place on a dark, foggy, rainy night, and upon review of the entire transcript of record, finds that the Carrier failed to produced sufficient positive evidence to support the discipline and show responsibility for damage.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Missouri Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-08-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a thirty (30) day actual suspension. Claimant was charged with responsibility in connection with a journal failure on the fifteenth (15th) car from the engine. Upon review of the entire record, the Board finds that Carrier failed to show negligence on the part of any crew member and the discipline imposed cannot be supported by the record.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-C&T Vs. Missouri Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-08-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and two (2) Brakemen for reinstatement to service and pay for all time lost as a result of their dismissal for violation of Rule "G". Claimants were subsequently reinstated by Carrier and this claim covers approximately six (6) months. Upon review of the entire transcript of record, the Board finds far too much speculation and guess work on the part of the Carrier and not enough solid evidence to support the charges against Claimants.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-08-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of fifteen (15) day suspension from his service record and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for various safety rule violations relating to the operation of brakes. The Board finds that the record falls far short of offering the required clear and convincing proof that Claimant violated any of the cited rules.
View Award
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU-T&E vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1982-08-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of a five day suspension and pay for all time lost, including pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with the derailment of a caboose. Upon review of the evidence and testimony of record, the Board holds that Carrier failed to prove that Claimant was responsible for the derailment.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1982-07-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a five (5) day actual suspension, which in turn triggered a five (5) day deferred suspension, and pay for all time lost in connection therewith. Claimant was disciplined for being negligent when he stepped off the engine ladder and sustained a personal injury to his ankle. The Board finds a lack of substantial evidence to show that the injury was due to negligence on the part of Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: BLE vs. Burlington Northern, Inc.
Award Date: 1982-07-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for payment of all time lost and removal of a five (5) day suspension. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with an accident resulting in damage to a number of cars. The record indicates that Claimant used due care in the performance of his work and there is no record of negligence on Claimant's part. The Board finds that Carrier failed in its burden of proof that the Engineer's handling of the situation has anything to do with the accident.
View Award
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-06-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for removal of thirty (30) demerits from his personal record and pay for time lost attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for violation of operating rule pertaining to flagging after sudden stops. The Board finds that evidence adduced through testimony of the Conductor is insufficient to support any discipline of Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-06-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for removal of thirty (30) day actual suspension from his personal record and pay for all time lost in accordance with the findings contained in Award No. 233 of this Board.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1982-06-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for removal of a forty-five (45) day actual suspension and pay for all time lost, including pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was charged with responsibility in connection with damage to cars while switching an industry. The record shows that Claimant measured the clearance between the two tracks involved in the usual manner and determined that the cars could be placed in the track without a problem. However, he was unaware that the tracks were not level and that, while there was sufficient clearance at the ground level, there was not sufficient clearance at the top of the cars. The Board finds that there is not substantial evidence to support Carrier's conclusion that the accident was caused by negligence on the part of Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1982-05-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakemen for reinstatement to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed for failure to gain proper permission to mark off. The Board finds that the evidence contained in the record is merely a restatement of the charge against Claimant, and there is a total lack of evidence to support the discipline imposed.
View Award
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-05-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a ten (10) day deferred suspension. Claimant was charged with "use of company equipment and time to make unauthorized tests of signals and other related appliances...". The Board finds that the Carrier has not met its burden of proof in establishing that Claimant had participated in the activities for which he was charged.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Joint Texas Division of CRI&P-FW&D Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1982-05-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for removal of a thirty (30) day deferred suspension and pay for all time lost attending investigation. Claimants were disciplined for their responsibility in connection with a derailment which caused extensive damage to track and equipment. The Board finds that Carrier failed in its burden to prove Claimants' responsibility as charged.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-05-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a five (5) day actual suspension, pay for time lost as a result of the suspension and while attending the investigation, and pay for time lost as a result of a fifteen (15) day deferred suspension activated by this incident. Claimant was charged with responsibility in connection with an accident when his switch engine struck a car fouling the lead. The Board finds that there is insufficient evidence contained in the record to support Carrier's finding of guilt.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-05-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimants were disciplined for sleeping in the cab of their locomotive while on duty. The Board finds that the Carrier has failed to establish Claimant's guilt by a preponderance of the evidence.
View Award
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co. - T&L Lines
Award Date: 1982-03-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for removal of a twelve (12) day suspension from his record and pay for all time lost including the cost of a blood test. Claimant was a member of the crew involved in Award No. 5 of this board, and was withheld from service pending investigation for violation of Rule "G" and possible withholding of information for not reporting Rule "G" violation. The record fails to show Claimant had knowledge that other members of his crew drank beer while on duty, and Carrier was wrong to presume he had such knowledge.
View Award
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for reinstatement to service with seniority and other rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed for violation of operating rules in connection with his sustaining a personal injury. The Board finds a dispute in facts as to whether or not Claimant had the injury prior to reporting for duty on the date in question or sustained the injury during the performance of his work, as claimed by the Claimant. The Board finds from review of the transcript that there is no supporting or collaborative evidence on which to discount the testimony of the Claimant, and the investigation lacks even the minimum standards of an administrative inquiry.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Terminal RR Association of St. Louis
Award Date: 1982-03-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for removal of a fifteen (15) day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for violation of safety rules resulting in a personal injury. The Board finds insufficient evidence to establish Claimant's violation of the safety rules for which he was cited.
View Award
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for pay for attending investigation and pay for all time lost as a result of his dismissal and subsequent reinstatement after approximately four (4) months. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with an accident which occurred while making back-up movements and resulted in injury to three (3) employees. Carrier contends that Claimant overheard a conversation between the Train Dispatcher and the Conductor of the crew which would have made him aware of a tie-tamper working in the area behind him. The Board finds that the Carrier has failed to show that Claimant acted in an unreasonable and imprudent manner and that his action or inaction contributed to the collision.
View Award
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a ninety (90) day suspension and pay for time lost. Claimant was disciplined for falsifying time report. Upon review of the transcript, the Board finds that Carrier failed to show by a preponderance of probative evidence that Claimant willfully and intentionally falsified entries on the Time Return.
View Award
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension and pay for all time lost, including pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for passing a red conditional stop sign without proper authorization. The Board finds that the Carrier failed in its burden of proof that Claimant intentionally entered the work limits without authorization. There is ample evidence to conclude that Claimant believed that he had authorization from the Production Supervisor to pass the red conditional stop sign.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Union Pacific RR Company - ED
Award Date: 1982-03-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Fireman for removal of thirty (30) demerits from his personal record. Claimant was disciplined for operating rule violation relating to reading newspapers and magazines while on duty. In view of all the evidence of record, the Board finds that Carrier did not carry its burden of proof within the meaning of the rule cited.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-T vs. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. - Former C&EI
Award Date: 1982-03-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for removal of a thirty (30) day deferred suspension and pay for time lost attending the investigation. Claimant was charged with failure to properly protect his assignment. The Board finds that the Carrier failed to develop all the facts in connection with the charge, which it has the burden to do in this case, and the record does not support the discipline imposed.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-T vs. Missouri Pacific RR Co. Former C&EI RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for removal of forty-five (45) day actual suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was charged with responsibility in connection with an accident caused when a car which had been kicked into Track No. 1 rolled out and collided with another car being kicked into Track 9. The Board holds that the apparent reason for the car to roll out of Track 1 was due to high winds, which caused the car to sail. Further, the Carrier failed in their burden to prove Claimant was guilty of rule violations with which he had been charged.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-T vs. Missouri Pacific RR Co. Former C&EI RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of letter of reprimand from his personal record. Claimant was disciplined for failure to fill out an accident report form in connection with a derailment of his engine and a car. The Board finds that the Carrier failed to prove that regulations required Claimant to file the report when the Conductor of the crew filed the report as required.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakemen for all time lost as a result of a ten (10) day suspension. The sixteenth (16th) car in Claimant's thirty-four (34) car train derailed, causing damage to the car and to track for a distance of 2-1/2 miles before the train broke into and went into emergency. Claimants were disciplined for failing to keep a proper lookout as they did not detect the derailment until after the emergency application of the brakes. The Board finds that the discipline cannot be supported by evidence of probative value and Carrier failed in its burden of proof of rule violation.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakemen for removal of entry from their personal records. Claimants' train was approaching a grade crossing when a pick-up truck stalled on the tracks and was struck by the engine. Carrier contends that Claimants were not in compliance with a bulletin pertaining to safety when approaching grade crossings. The Board finds to the contrary and further, Carrier failed in its burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Burlington Northern, Inc. (Former SP&S)
Award Date: 1982-02-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of a five (5) day suspension from his personal record and pay for all time lost. Claimant marked off the extra board due to illness and was automatically marked back to the extra board after 24 hours without his knowledge. This action resulted in his missing a call which resulted in the above discipline. Carrier contends Claimant had knowledge of a bulletin providing for the automatic mark-up, however, the Board finds extenuating circumstances in favor of the Claimant which have not been overcome by substantial evidence provided by the Carrier.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Colorado & Southern Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1982-02-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for a yard day when required to close the rear door of a tri-level auto rack which was fouling the track of Claimant's work site. The Board finds that the Organization failed in its burden of proof that this work belonged exclusively to the Carmen's craft.
View Award
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: BLE vs. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1982-02-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a ten (10) day deferred suspension, which activated a fifteen (15) day actual suspension. Claimant was charged with responsibility for a derailment when shoving empties into No. 1 Track, one car was shoved off the end of the track. The Board finds conflicting testimony between the two Brakemen concerning the passing of signals to the Engineer and the Carrier failed to show, by substantive evidence, culpability on the part of the Engineer.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
Award Date: 1982-02-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension from his personal record and pay for all time lost. Claimant, a rear brakeman, was charged with responsibility when his train passed a stop and stay signal without proper permission, resulting in a near collision. The record reveals adverse weather conditions and marred caboose windows, which was not refuted at the hearing. The Board finds that Carrier has failed to establish Claimant's responsibility.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1982-02-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman for removal of a fifteen (15) day suspension and pay for all time lost, including time spent attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for failure to perform his duties in a prompt and efficient manner. The Board finds from the record, that there is not sufficient evidence from which the Carrier could conclude that Claimant failed to perform his duties in a proper manner.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU vs. Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1982-02-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of entry from his personal record. Claimant was disciplined following investigation for improper handling of a switch which resulted in the derailment of five (5) cars. Based on the transcript of investigation, the Board finds that the Carrier did not meet its burden of proof to show that Claimant was negligent or in violation of any rule. Further, the record shows that in all probability, the derailment was caused by faulty equipment.
View Award
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Maine Central Railroad Co. - (Portland Terminal)
Award Date: 1982-01-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of ten (10) demerit marks from his personal record and pay for attending the hearing. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with damage to equipment and injury to the Engineer of the crew during direction of a switching move. The Board finds from the testimony of record, that Claimant did everything required to insure the safe movement of the train, and Carrier failed in its burden of proof as to any rule violation on the part of Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
Award Date: 1982-01-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Conductor for reinstatement to service with seniority and other rights unimpaired, but without pay for time lost. Claimant was dismissed for mishandling cash fares. The Board finds that Carrier has not met their burden of proof to support their finding of Claimant's guilt.
View Award
Neutral: Richard R. Kasher
Parties: UTU vs. Boston & Maine Corp.
Award Date: 1982-01-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Passenger Conductor for pay for all time lost plus deadheading to and from the investigation, when he was improperly dismissed from service for violation of Rule "G". Claimant was one of several passenger service employees suspected of using alcohol while on duty or while subject to duty. On May 31, 1977, Claimant was directed to report to the Passenger Trainmaster's office, at which time he agreed to submit to a blood alcohol test. Claimant was released for duty after the sample was taken, however, Claimant was removed from service some fifty-five (55) minutes prior to completing his tour of duty when the results of the blood test revealed an alcohol concentration of .577. The Board finds two significant reasons to conclude that Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof. First, a blood alcohol concentration of .577 is sufficient to render an individual comatose or near death, which Claimant obviously was not. Second, none of the Carrier officials present when Claimant reported to the Trainmaster's office felt at the time it was necessary to withhold Claimant from service. The Carrier clearly failed in its burden of proof in this case.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Baltimore & Ohio RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-01-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, the claim of a Brakeman for reinstatement to service with a seventeen (17) month probation, but without pay for time lost. Claimant was found with an off-duty employee in the switchtenders' shanty by a special officer of the Carrier. Also, the officer found a can of beer and a spoon which, when later analyzed, was found to have contained cocaine. Both employees were charged with violation of Rule "G" and dismissed from service. The Board finds that the Rule "G" charge, insofar as claimant is concerned, applied to the can of beer, and that belonged to the other Brakeman. Nonetheless, the Board holds that Claimant should not have let an off-duty employee use the switchtenders' shanty to drink beer and use a narcotic, and sustains this claim accordingly.
View Award
Neutral: Robert A. Franden
Parties: UTU vs. Port Terminal Railroad Association
Award Date: 1982-01-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engine Foreman for removal of a 5-day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was charged with violation of operating rules which resulted in damage to 150 feet of rail beyond repair. The Board finds that with the exception of testimony by the yardmaster at the location where the incident occurred, the evidence against Claimant is totally circumstantial, and the carrier has failed to meet their burden of proof that Claimant's negligence was the reason for damage to this section of track.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co. - T&L Lines
Award Date: 1981-12-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for pay for all time lost as a result of a thirty (30) day actual suspension. Claimant elected to waive the investigation and was issued the discipline for violation of Operating Rules. Subsequently, the Organization raised the issue of procedural violations. The Board finds that by waiving the investigation and agreeing to accept the discipline, the Claimant also waived any subsequent procedural argument.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Atlanta and St. Andrews Bay Railway Company
Award Date: 1981-12-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of Brakeman for reinstatement with seniority and other rights unimpaired but without pay for time lost. The Board reviews the various procedural issues raised by the Organization, but finds Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial investigation. However, of all the charges made against claimant's conduct, only the charge of insubordination is warranted, and permanent dismissal, under all the facts and circumstances, is too severe.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Award Date: 1981-12-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of a ninety (90) day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to take necessary action to stop his train prior to reaching a point where sled gang was working. The Board finds that there is insufficient evidence to support such a finding of Claimant's guilt. The record reflects that the Engineer was braking his train with some difficulty, however, there was no cause for Claimant to place the train in emergency or do anything other than what he did.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1981-12-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Brakeman for removal of 30 demerits from his service record and pay for all time lost. Claimant received 10 demerits on three (3) different counts, relating to events surrounding one tour of duty. The Board finds that none of the discipline can be supported by the rules and takes Carrier to task for unjustified nit-picking.
View Award
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: BLE vs. Burlington Northern, Inc. -SR
Award Date: 1981-12-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, the claim of an Engineer by reducing a sixty-six (66) day suspension to a thirty-three (33) day suspension and allows pay for time lost in excess thereof. Claimant was dismissed from service following investigation to determine his responsibility in connection with an emergency application of air brakes and subsequent derailment. He was later returned to service without prejudice to the instant claim. Upon review of the evidence, the Board finds that Carrier failed to sustain the burden of proof that Claimant had responsibility for the derailment. Claimant did have responsibility, however, for failure to insist on full compliance with the operating rules. A sixty-six (66) day suspension is excessive and not commensurable with the rule violation and the Board sets aside one-half (1/2) of the discipline imposed.
View Award
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: BLE vs. Burlington Northern, Inc. SR
Award Date: 1981-12-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of discipline from his record and pay for all time lost and pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was charged with negligence when the train he was operating collided with a motor car. The Board finds that Carrier failed in its burden of proof to show Claimant operated his train in a negligent manner.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1981-12-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for restoration to service with all rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed from service after an investigation on the charge of physical assault and further threats of physical harm to a Trainmaster. The Board finds that due to the many questions left unanswered in the transcript, and the failure of the Carrier to clearly prove its case against Claimant, along with Claimant's twenty-five (25) years of otherwise good service, this claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Jack A. Warshaw
Parties: UTU-E vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1981-11-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of a Fireman, by reducing a fifteen (15) day suspension to a five (5) day suspension and allowing pay for time lost in excess thereof. Claimant was charged with violation of Rule "G" and absenting himself from duty, plus several other rules relating thereto. After reviewing the record of this case, the Board finds that the Carrier failed to prove that Claimant was, in fact, in possession of an alcoholic beverage. However, Claimant did fail to devote himself exclusively to the business of the Carrier and a five (5) day suspension is warranted.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Baltimore & Ohio RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-11-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of discipline from his service record and allows actual time for pay for attending the investigation with a minimum of two (2) hours. Claimant, a Head Brakeman, was assessed a thirty (30) day overhead suspension for his responsibility in connection with his train failing to stop short of a signal display and stop indication. The Board finds that Carrier failed in its burden of proof, as the transcript reflects that when Claimant called the signal indication to the Engineer's attention, the train was already in emergency, thus vitiating Claimant's obligation to apply the emergency brake valve.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-11-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for removal of a five (5) day suspension from his service record and pay for all time lost. Claimant was assessed the discipline after investigation in which the Carrier determined he was in violation of certain rules relating to employee conduct and dishonesty. The Board finds that the record of testimony contained in the transcript will not support the discipline assessed.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-11-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension from his service record and pay for all time lost. The Board finds that the record will not support a finding that Claimant violated any of the rules with which he was cited.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-11-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension from his service record and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for failure to properly place himself on another job after being displaced. The Board finds that Carrier has not sustained its burden of clear and convincing proof of Claimant's culpability.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-11-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, the claim of an Engineman for reinstatement to service and pay for time lost, less pay for the period of August 29, 1979 to February 28, 1980, such six (6) month deduction due to the peculiar circumstances involved in this case. Claimant was dismissed after investigation when he was found to have been insubordinate in failing to properly comply with instructions given him by the Assistant Terminal Trainmaster. The Board finds Claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial investigation and finds other errors throughout Carrier's handling of the matter.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1981-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for removal of letters of reprimand from their service records. Claimants were reprimanded for their failure to properly comply with the operating rules when after extinguishing a hot box and setting out the car, the fire reignited, burning the bottom of the car and the Fire Department had to be called. The Carrier contends that Claimants should not have left the scene until they were certain the fire was completely out. The Board finds that the evidence does not clearly establish that the car was actually burning when Claimants left the scene. Further, it is not clear whether Claimants had access to additional water or other means to further deal with the situation.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1981-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Rear Brakeman for removal of fifty (50) demerits and denies claim of Head Brakeman for removal of a five (5) day deferred suspension. Claimants received the above discipline for their responsibility in connection with their train exceeding a speed restriction set forth in a train order given them at the time they went on duty. The Board finds that the Head Brakeman should have been aware of the train speed as it approached the restricted area and his discipline was justified. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Conductor and Rear Brakeman were derelict in their duties in not realizing that the train was operating at excess speed.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1981-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman for pay for time lost attending the investigation in which it was held that he was responsible for a derailment which occurred during a pick-up of 14 cars. The Board finds the record does not contain substantial evidence to support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant was derelict in his duties under the circumstances of this case.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1981-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Head Brakeman for removal of a five (5) day deferred suspension and pay for all time lost, plus time spent while attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with failure of the head end crew to respond to an efficiency test being conducted by a Carrier Trainmaster. The Board finds from the facts before it, that it does not seem that Claimant was at fault; he was in the front seat and looking ahead and the Fireman was behind him and looking to the rear at the time the test was being conducted.
View Award
Neutral: R. E. Stenzinger
Parties: UTU-T&E vs. Detroit Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1981-10-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for pay for all lost time he was wrongfully withheld from service, with seniority and vacation rights unimpaired and kept whole for all fringe benefits. Claimant was dismissed from service for being insubordinate. During their tour of duty, the Engineer instructed the flagman to contact the tower for permission to take lunch. Permission was granted, yet, later the crew received a message rescinding that permission. Nevertheless, Claimant and certain other crew members secured their train and drove a company car to a restaurant. Upon their return to the train, they were immediately dismissed from service. The Board finds that the Carrier failed to establish probative evidence of support to their charges against Claimant. Claimant was not assigned a radio and, therefore, was required to rely on other crew members for messages dealing with his work as a Brakeman. Further, Claimant was carrying out the instructions of his Conductor to secure the train as if the crew was going to eat lunch.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Central of Georgia
Award Date: 1981-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for pay for all time lost when improperly issued a forty-five (45) day suspension. Claimants were disciplined after formal investigation for violation of an operating rule which requires that a crew member protect street or road crossings before a train or engine shoves cars into the crossing. The Board finds that the manner in which the move was made was not a violation of the Rule cited by the Carrier, as no cars were shoved across the crossing. If there was another Operating Rule, as to an obligation to protect the crossing, such was not cited. Therefore, the Carrier has failed in its burden of proof on the charge made.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Central of Georgia
Award Date: 1981-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for pay for time lost when improperly given a seven (7) day suspension for his responsibility in connection with a derailment. Claimant and all other ground crew members were riding the lead car of a shoving movement. Upon reaching a dirt crossing, the accumulation of dirt on the track had built up to the extent that it caused the car to derail. The crew was required to attend an investigation, and as a result thereof, Claimant was found guilty of various Operating Rule violations. In overturning the discipline, the Board finds that the Carrier failed in its burden of proof. The arguments offered by the Carrier lead to the conclusion that it desires the employee be the assurer of no accidents. Here, Carrier failed to show what Claimant should have done and what he could have done to avoid the derailment.
View Award
Neutral: George S. Roukis
Parties: UTU vs. Long Island RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for reversal of a sixty (60) day suspension. Claimant was charged with various rule violations on the basis of a letter of complaint sent to the Carrier's Director of Public Affairs by a train passenger. The Board finds that a mere letter of complaint, standing alone with no further corroboration, is not substantive evidence to warrant discipline and the Carrier failed to carry its burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Missouri Pacific (T&P)
Award Date: 1981-09-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Head Brakeman for pay for time lost from the date of dismissal until date of his reinstatement. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with his train operating at excessive speed during parts of the road trip. The Board, after careful review of the transcript of investigation, finds that the Carrier failed in its burden of proof to establish Claimant's guilt in that the speed tapes, used as evidence against Claimant, were (1) bad order in the trailing unit and (2) three miles fast in the lead unit. Therefore, the Board finds no evidence of probative value to support the discipline.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-T vs. Missouri Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-09-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for pay for time lost from the date he was removed from service until reinstated by the Carrier. Claimant was dismissed from service following a formal investigation for his failure to properly perform his duties as a Brakeman which resulted in a derailment of his train. The Board conducts a lengthy review of the Transcript of Investigation and determines from the contents thereof, that the Carrier failed in its burden of proof that Claimant did not inspect his train in a proper manner during the trip by lack of observation while the train was in motion and by walking inspection while standing. To the contrary, the evidence of record favors Claimant, that his observation was diligent and continuous.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
Award Date: 1981-09-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Conductor for pay for all time lost, including any and all loss of fringe benefits and with seniority unimpaired when improperly dismissed for violation of Rule "G". Testimony at the investigation revealed that Claimant submitted to a blood test which resulted in a negative finding, three crew members located in the locomotive compartment with the Claimant testified that he had not consumed alcoholic beverages, and other witnesses could not detect an odor of alcohol on Claimant's breath. Further, no other effort was made to determine who had brought the beer which had been found on the locomotive. The Board finds that the testimony in favor of Claimant is so overwhelming that the discipline imposed cannot be supported.
View Award
Neutral: C. Robert Roadley
Parties: BLE vs. Missouri Pacific RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-09-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a ninety (90) day deferred suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was found guilty of violating operating rules which resulted in the derailment of cars crossing over a misaligned or malfunctioning remote controlled power switch. The Board finds that the Carrier has not met its burden of proof in determining Claimant's responsibility. Carrier appears to have based its decision solely upon conjecture and/or speculation.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: Florida East Coast Ry. vs. Florida Fed. of RR Employees
Award Date: 1981-08-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of discipline from his service record and pay for all time lost while improperly withheld from service, less unemployment benefits and any other benefits Claimant received during the time he was held out of service. Claimant received a personal injury for which he was charged with failure to exercise proper care and after investigation, was assessed with thirty demerits which in turn led to his discharge. In removing the discipline from Claimant's record, the Board finds that Carrier failed in its burden of proof in reaching a conclusion that the Claimant was careless or negligent in the performance of his duties. Further, the Board notes Claimant has no prior record of injuries or negligence.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1981-08-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineman for removal of five (5) days' suspension, pay for time lost and pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for claiming unearned time on his time slip in violation of the rule. The Board finds that Claimant became ill during his tour of duty and when a crew member contacted the Yardmaster for instructions, the Yardmaster decided to tie-up the crew prior to completion of their full eight-hour tour of duty. The Board notes that the Engineer was not relieved of duty, rather the crew was tied-up. But in any event, there is a total absence of proof of circumstances indicating that Claimant intended to defraud the Carrier.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1981-07-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Head Brakeman for removal of five (5) days' deferred suspension, pay for all time lost and time attending an investigation in connection with his alleged responsibility in failing to properly inspect his train, resulting in a derailment. The Board finds, on the record; "We do not find substantial evidence to support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant failed to properly inspect his train, and we will therefore sustain the claim."
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1981-07-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for removal of fifteen (15) day deferred suspension from his record and pay for time lost and pay for attending the investigation. Claimant was disciplined for rule violation when the Carrier determined that he did not properly inspect the track from the rear of his train. The Board finds Claimant used good judgment in the performance of his duties and there is insufficient evidence to show that Claimant ignored or violated the rule.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1981-06-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claims of a Yard Foreman and one Helper and denies the claim of a second Helper, for time lost as the result of being suspended in connection with a coupling accident. The Board finds no evidence of record that the Foreman and one Helper violated any of the rules or otherwise conducted themselves improperly and sustained their claims. In denying the claim of the second helper, the Board finds Claimant had a responsibility to stop the movement when he was unable to hear the radio transmissions directing the doubling movement.
View Award
Neutral: Eugene Mittelman
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1981-06-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for reinstatement to service with seniority and other rights unimpaired, pay for all time lost, including pay for attending the investigation and discipline removed from his record. Claimant was charged with insubordination for failing to remain on company property so that a Carrier Official could "attend" to his injury and take him to a hospital, therefore, disobeying a direct order. The Board finds that Claimant was not given the fair and impartial hearing to which he was entitled in that the Hearing Officer appeared to have a closed mind to any factors which might mitigate Claimant's guilt. The Board also concludes that the Claimant was not actually required to accept the proffered assistance of the Carrier Official in attending to his injury or transporting him to medical facility, if he did not wish to accept it. Under these circumstances, the Board sustains the award.
View Award
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1981-04-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of ten (10) day actual suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for his responsibility in connection with a twenty-seven (27) car derailment. After review of the facts and circumstances here involved, the Board finds that Carrier failed to show that Claimant's actions caused the derailment, and Carrier's conclusion was based on speculation and surmise.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C,T&Y vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe - E&W
Award Date: 1981-03-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for exoneration of all charges and removal of ten (10) demerits. Claimant suffered an injury to his left hand while in the process of adjusting the coupling apparatus on a car. After formal investigation, the Carrier found him guilty of violating the safety rules. The Board finds that, while it may be true that Claimant violated a safety rule, it is clear, from the language of the rule with which he was charged and the undisputed testimony in the transcript, that this was not the rule he violated. The Carrier bears the responsibility to prove the appropriate and proper charge and here, the Carrier failed to carry out that responsibility.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C vs. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern
Award Date: 1981-03-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of sixty (60) demerits and pay for time lost. Claimant sustained an injury to his right forearm when struck by a switch target in connection with lining a switch for the movement of his train. As a result of the investigation, Carrier found him in violation of the operating rules and issued demerits. The Board finds, after reviewing the testimony found in the transcript, that the Carrier failed to prove the charge brought against the Claimant. The fact that an injury occurred does not warrant a conclusion that the injured party violated a rule.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Louisville & Nashville
Award Date: 1981-03-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakemen for removal of sixty (60) and forty-five (45) days' suspension, respectively, and pay for time lost attending investigation. Carrier found Claimants guilty of operating rule violation when they failed to cut a public crossing and delaying another train when that crew had to stop and cut the crossing blocked by Claimants' train. The Board finds that the Carrier failed in its burden of proof that Claimants violated the rule. When Claimants entered the siding, they had twenty (20) minutes remaining to work under the Hours of Service Law, in which they could have performed this work, but they did not know they would tie-up at the siding until after talking to the Dispatcher on duty. In fact, the Dispatcher himself had not been told that the crew was to tie up at this point. He further testified that after talking to Claimant Brakeman on the telephone, "...I then more or less ... proceeded to instruct train 472 ... by radio to stop...and cut the crossing... ".
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E vs. Georgia, Southern & Florida
Award Date: 1981-03-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of thirty (30) days' suspension from his service record and pay for all time lost. Claimant was assessed the suspension when he was found to be responsible for a pulled drawbar in his train after an emergency application of the brakes. A review of the record leaves considerable question, concerning his responsibility in this incident, and the Board is inclined to give Claimant the benefit of the doubt.
View Award
Neutral: R. E. Stenzinger
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-03-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for pay for all time lost (258 days) with seniority unimpaired, kept whole for fringe benefits and vacation rights, less outside earnings, if any, as a result of being improperly withheld from service. Claimant was disciplined for insubordination in failing to comply with instructions of the Train Dispatcher, which rescinded previous authorization for the crew to eat enroute. Procedural objections raised by Organization are rejected and the Board holds that Claimant received a fair and impartial investigation. However, the Board holds that Carrier did not meet its required burden of proof as to the specific charges of insubordination.
View Award
Neutral: R. E. Stenzinger
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-03-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Fireman for pay for all time lost (98 days) with seniority unimpaired, kept whole for fringe benefits and vacation rights, less outside earnings, if any, as a result of being improperly withheld from service. The facts herein are identical to those contained in Award No. 1 of this Board and this claim is sustained in accordance with the findings therein.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1981-02-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard crew for pay for all time lost resulting from a suspension assessed for their alleged responsibility in connection with damage to a power switch. The Board finds that the cause of the damage is not clear, that crews of other railroads were operating in the area, also a question that the switch might have been operating improperly and that the Carrier did not prove sufficiently that Claimants were responsible and thus, due discipline.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1981-02-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a brakeman for all time lost resulting from a 30-day suspension assessed on a charge of operating in an unsafe manner when he sustained an ankle injury. The Board finds there is not sufficient proof that the claimant violated any rules, that he was riding the car properly and when he stepped off, his ankle was twisted.
View Award
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line
Award Date: 1981-01-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of discipline from his service record and pay for all time lost. Claimant was assessed a ninety (90) day suspension for failing to protect his assignment. The record reveals that Claimant called the Yardmaster on duty some eight (8) hours in advance of the assigned starting time of his job and attempted to lay off because of a sprained ankle. The Yardmaster refused to grant permission and testified at the investigation that the reason he refused was that no other employees were available and he suspected Claimant was not really injured. Further testimony reveals that there were, in fact, available employees to cover the assignment. In sustaining this claim, the Board finds that Carrier did not meet its burden of proof. Claimant's record may have been of such as to cause the Carrier official to suspect the validity of Claimant's assertion, but this does not allow the Carrier to act on supposition and without fact.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Kennecott Minerals Co. Utah Copper
Award Date: 1981-01-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor for all time lost, removal of restrictions and his record cleared, resulting from a 90-day suspension and other restrictions imposed for allegedly submitting a fraudulent time slip. Claimant was charged with submitting a fraudulent time slip on behalf of himself and his brakeman indicating he had departed his home terminal after having been on duty eight (8) hours and claiming an additional penalty day by reason thereof, when he had allegedly actually left the terminal nine (9) minutes prior to having been on duty for eight (8) hours. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds, "we cannot conclude that the Company fairly met its burden to prove a willful, intentional, fraudulent act and thus, Grievant's Claim must be sustained".
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1981-01-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for reinstatement with all rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost, including time attending investigation. Claimant was found to have alcohol on his breath after completion of his tour of duty, and after investigation he was dismissed from service for violation of Rule "G". The Board notes that Claimant, when confronted with the possibility that he was under the influence, agreed to take all the tests that were administered by the Carrier and its special agent and passed them all. In fact, when the special agent, who administered these tests and conducted the interview with Claimant, filled out the report form, under the heading of "Effects of Alcohol" he checked the box marked "none". In view of the findings of these tests the fact that no witnesses were called to testify as to Claimant s condition during his tour of duty and that the violation of Rule "G" is based on the results of a Breathalyzer test, the evidence does not support the conclusion reached by the Carrier that Claimant was in violation of Rule "G".
View Award
Neutral: Robert A. Franden
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1981-01-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for reinstatement to service with pay for all time lost, seniority and vacation rights and all fringe benefits unimpaired. Claimant was dismissed from service after formal investigation for his responsibility in failing to stop his train which resulted in a collision and failing to communicate to other crew members the name and aspect of each signal affecting the movement of his train. After careful review of the transcript of investigation and all of the accident reports which were filed, the Board finds that the Carrier failed in meeting its burden of proof in finding Claimant guilty of the offense with which he was charged.
View Award
Neutral: Robert A. Franden
Parties: UTU vs. Port Terminal Railroad Association
Award Date: 1981-01-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of yardperson for removal of a 3-day suspension and pay for all time lost, including time spent attending the investigation. Claimant was charged with violation of certain operating and safety rules in connection with a personal injury suffered during her tour of duty. The Board finds that there is no testimony in the record to the effect that Claimant conducted herself in an unsafe manner. Further, the mere fact that Claimant was injured does not mean that she violated a rule.
View Award
Neutral: Kay McMurray
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date: 1980-12-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman for all time lost resulting from a 5-day suspension assessed for his alleged responsibility in connection with a derailment of six cars. Carrier alleged Claimant was careless in the use of the radio and was partly responsible for the accident. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds that the Carrier did not prove that Claimant was guilty of radio misuse and further, his efforts to stop the train manually indicated a proper sense of responsibility.
View Award
Neutral: William E. Fredenberger, Jr.
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1980-12-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for all time lost resulting from a 137-day suspension, pay for attending the investigation and restoration of loss of any fringe benefits. Claimant was found responsible for his train proceeding past a red home signal. After reviewing the evidence, the Board finds that there was an experienced engineer, a fireperson and a brakeman, all riding in the lead locomotive when the train went past the red home signal, all of whom should have been aware of the signal and taken proper action. Claimant, meanwhile, was in the second unit relieving himself of an uncontrollable urge. The Board finds, under the circumstances of this case, that Claimant's actions were not unreasonable and that the Carrier has not sustained its burden of proof that Claimant violated the rules as charged.
View Award
Neutral: William E. Fredenberger, Jr.
Parties: UTU-T&E vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1980-12-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yardman for all time lost resulting from 68 days' suspension assessed for missing calls. Claimant was originally dismissed, but the discipline was modified by the Carrier to a 68-day suspension. The Board finds the Carrier failed to sustain its burden of proof that Claimant missed the calls as charged and therefore that the investigation was not fair and impartial and that the discipline even though reduced, must therefore be overturned.
View Award
Neutral: I. M. Lieberman
Parties: BLE vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1980-11-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of ten (10) days' suspension and pay for all time lost. Discipline was assessed because of Claimant passing a dwarf signal displaying a stop indication. Evidence reveals that the Claimant did pass the stop signal, however, the Board believes that the Carrier mistakenly held only Claimant responsible for this improper move in violation of the rule. Claimant was positioned on the opposite side of the engine from the dwarf signal, had a defective radio and was operating in accordance with hand signals being given by a Brakeman. The Board finds that there was not adequate evidence adduced at the investigation to support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant was in violation of the rules.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-11-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of five (5) days' deferred suspension, five (5) days' actual suspension, plus pay for the ten (10) days off and pay for time spent attending investigation. Claimant sustained a personal injury as a result of his being thrown off the caboose due to slack action. Carrier bases its contention, that Claimant failed to hold on with two hands, on Claimants's statement made at the end of the investigation, after which no further questions were asked and no further explanation given. The Board finds that the bare statement, with no further explanation, does not support the Carrier's conclusion, in face of the earlier testimony to the contrary.
View Award
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Gulf RR
Award Date: 1980-11-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Switchman for pay for all time lost resulting from a suspension of thirty (30) working days, assessed for allegedly faking illness as an excuse to go home during a tour of duty. The Board held the Carrier has the burden of proving an improper use of sick leave and finds that the evidence fails to support Carrier's conclusion.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1980-11-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the request of an Engineer and Fireman for removal of fifteen (15) demerits assessed against their personal records for an alleged undue delay to their train, which occurred under unusual blizzard conditions. The Board finds that discipline must be supported by clear and convincing proof of culpability and that such proof was inadequate in this case.
View Award
Neutral: I. M. Lieberman
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Coast Lines
Award Date: 1980-11-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for removal of thirty (30) demerits from his personal record. Claimant was found by the Carrier to have violated the safety rules when he sustained an injury to a finger on his left hand while placing a chock under the wheels of a car. Claimant was the only witness to the incident and testified that the cars were stopped at the point where he was putting the chock under the wheels, but then moved, apparently through slack action. The Board finds that by no stretch of the imagination can the events of the night of the incident be construed to demonstrate "negligence or carelessness of such a degree as to be inexcusable" on the part of the Claimant. In this case, the burden of proof that there was negligence or carelessness by the Claimant was not demonstrated by the Carrier.
View Award
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: BLE vs. Conrail Corp.
Award Date: 1980-10-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer that the discipline assessed for his alleged responsibility in connection with a derailment be expunged from his record and that he be paid for all time lost. The Board finds serious and substantial conflicts in the record of the investigation and that the Carrier did not have substantial evidence on the record to find that Claimant had violated the rules and was, therefore, responsible for the derailment.
View Award
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific - Pacific
Award Date: 1980-10-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman for reinstatement to service with seniority unimpaired and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed for allegedly having misrepresented his true physical condition, resulting from a personal injury sustained while on duty. In essence, Claimant had been charged with fraudulently misrepresenting his physical condition and remaining off the job, collecting disability benefits during a period of time he was fully capable of performing work as a trainman. The Carrier relied primarily upon the testimony of a private investigator and moving pictures he took showing Claimant mowing his lawn, driving his van, carrying groceries and washing his van. The movie also shows claimant at times squatting, bending and stooping -- activities which Carrier contends Claimant had advised them on several occasions he could not perform. In sustaining the claim, the Neutral concludes that the Carrier's heavy burden of proof had not been met.
View Award
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific - Pacific
Award Date: 1980-10-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for removal of thirty (30) demerits assessed on his discipline record and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant sustained an injury to his left knee while stepping off the engine and was found by the Carrier to be in violation of safety rules on a contention that he did not exercise care to avoid injury. The Board holds that the mere sustaining of any injury does not constitute proof of carelessness and the Carrier has failed to carry its burden of proof in this case.
View Award
Neutral: George E. Larney
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-10-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim and request of two (2) Yardmen for the removal of a letter of reprimand from their personal records. Discipline was assessed when three cars, previously set in a yard track by Claimants, began to roll free and had to be secured by two Carrier Officials who happened to be in the area performing an inspection. The Organization contended that the yard was prone to trespassing, as it was unfenced and unsecured, and that such trespassers had been known to release both hand and air brakes in the past, and that on the day and time in question, kids were observed walking through the yard. The Board held, upon a thorough review of all the facts and circumstances of record, the Board can find no probative evidence indicating that Claimants were careless in the performance of their duties and therefore, ruled that the claim must be sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-10-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for reinstatement to service with seniority rights and privileges unimpaired and pay for all time lost resulting from his dismissal for an alleged violation of Rule "G". The Board finds that Carrier's failure to observe time limit provisions would entitle Claimant to pay for at least part of the time lost, however, such violation does not in and of itself require that Claimant be reinstated to service. The Board held: "In our view, the claim must be sustained in its entirety. Claimant was charged with a Rule G violation and not with playing fast and loose with Carrier's call-in regulations. There is no persuasive evidence that he actually was consuming an alcoholic beverage during the time in question. The fact that a trainmaster and a crew caller may have heard the tinkle of glasses and 'bar noises' in the course of a telephone conversation is not sufficient evidence of a Rule G violation even if coupled with claimant's bragging that he had been drinking that afternoon. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish rule infractions; in this case, however, we do not find the evidence offered persuasive. The result might have been different if a call-in violation were charged and found.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-T vs. Indiana Harbor Belt
Award Date: 1980-10-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yard Foreman for reinstatement to service with pay for all time lost resulting from his dismissal from service for his alleged responsibility in connection with a derailment causing property damage. In sustaining the claim, the Neutral finds the Board is unable to find anything in the record establishing that anything this Claimant did or did not do caused the accident. The decision appealed contains no specific information on that subject nor do the charges for that matter. The situation was quickly contained after it became known and the Board does not find from any evidence in this case that it was or should have or could have been prevented by Claimant; or that any rule violation by Claimant was the proximate cause of the accident.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-T vs. Indiana Harbor Belt
Award Date: 1980-10-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yard Conductor for reinstatement and pay for all time lost resulting from his dismissal for his alleged responsibility in connection with damage to machinery loaded on a flat car. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds, first, Claimant was not charged with the violation of any specific rule, second, Claimant was not charged with any specific or specified negligence or negligent act or omission in the performance of his duties, such as excess speed, failure to exercise care, or other particular acts of omission or commission, and third, he was not specifically convicted of a rule violation, of negligent operation, of pertinent acts or omissions that caused the machine to fall off and therefore does not find there was sufficient clear and probative evidence in this record to establish Claimant's responsibility.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-T vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1980-09-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yard Conductor for sixty (60) days' suspension, assessed for his alleged responsibility in connection with a yard collision and subsequent derailment and damage to two cars and an engine. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds the Carrier failed to furnish clear and convincing proof of Claimant's culpability.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: BLE vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1980-09-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for all lost earnings resulting from Carrier's arbitrary disqualifying to perform road service as a locomotive engineer. Claimant was involved in a side collision with another train to which he plead guilty and for which he was assessed 30 demerit marks. Subsequently, by letter, he was notified he was disqualified to perform service as a locomotive engineer in road service only, the reason given as a review of his extensive history of collisions. The Board finds that Claimant had been qualified with some 27 years of service and that while the Carrier has the right to disqualify an employee, but not without a hearing at which the employee may be present and dispute the charge of incompetence brought against him.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1980-09-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for removal of censure from his personal record and that he be paid for all time lost as the result of a 15-day suspension assessed for his alleged responsibility in connection with a collision between his engine and another engine. The Board finds that the Carrier did not sustain its burden of proof and that the evidence is not sufficiently clear to show that Claimant failed to use due care and could have avoided the accident.
View Award
Neutral: Herbert L. Marx, Jr.
Parties: UTU vs. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range
Award Date: 1980-08-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman that his record be cleared of an alleged failure to protect his assignment. Carrier's Caller called Claimant's home on three consecutive days, asking for Claimant and was advised that Claimant was not at home. As a result, Claimant was charged with failure to protect his assignment. The Board finds that Carrier's Caller simply asked for Claimant without identifying himself and had he done so, and received merely a "not at home" response without more, the Carrier's action would have been entirely justified.
View Award
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU-C vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1980-08-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor for removal of 30 demerits assessed his personal record in connection with a loss of a portable radio removed from the caboose by a person or persons unknown. The Board held that it was compelled to find that the Carrier has not met its burden of proof that the Claimant was in violation of the Operating Rule as charged.
View Award
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU-C vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1980-08-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor for time lost and removal of discipline from his personal record as the result of a 30-day suspension assessed on an allegation that he had falsified his actual tie-up time. The Board finds no showing in the record that the Claimants' actions were fraudulent or dishonest. (Carrier Member's Dissent is attached hereto).
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-08-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yard Foreman for removal of a 60-day suspension from his record, pay for all time lost and time spent attending an investigation, resulting from a charge of failure to expedite assignment and failure to complete an accurate trip report. Claimant's crew had made an interchange delivery to a foreign carrier after which they had placed their caboose on the cars to be returned to their home yard, completed the air test and had gone to lunch. After returning from lunch and advising the foreign yard Yardmaster that they were ready to leave, they were held for an additional 45 minutes. Claimant's report showed one hour of the nearly three hours spent in the foreign carrier's yard was for a meal period, with no explanation for the remaining time. The Board finds the Carrier has the right to require a report accounting for all the delay if it wishes to, but first must make such requirement clear to the employees before they may be subjected to discipline for failure to comply with it.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-08-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, the claim of a yardman for removal of a thirty-day suspension from his record and that he be paid for all time lost including the serving of an additional five-day deferred suspension. Claimant was assessed a thirty-day suspension on a charge of failure to properly perform his duties, resulting in a personal injury and with failure to give a factual report concerning the injury. The Board finds substantial evidence to support a conclusion that Claimant violated the safety rule, but not substantial evidence to support a conclusion that he deliberately filed a false report about his injury. Under the circumstances, the suspension was reduced to fifteen days and Claimant allowed fifteen days' time lost.
View Award
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: BLE vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1980-08-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, the claim of an Engineer for reinstatement to service with seniority unimpaired and pay for time lost in excess of a thirty (30) day suspension, in lieu of pay for all time lost as claimed. Subsequent to the investigation, Claimant was discharged from service for failure to have the volume control on his radio adjusted so as to receive proper communication and for physically assaulting a Road Foreman of Engines. In reducing the discipline of dismissal to that of a thirty (30) day suspension, the Board finds that the Carrier did not establish its burden of proof regarding the physical assault. However, the Board does find that the Claimant did not properly tune the control volume on his radio in order to receive proper communication and will sustain that charge.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Toledo, Peoria & Western
Award Date: 1980-08-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engine Foreman for pay for time lost and his record cleared resulting from a 5-day suspension assessed for his alleged responsibility in connection with a yard accident. The Board concludes that there was not sufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's culpability. The fact that Claimant was the Engine Foreman does not thereby automatically place guilt as the result of an incident occurring. To conclude otherwise would make the Foreman the insurer of all accidents. Carrier failed to show what Claimant failed to do which he otherwise should have done and which would have thereby prevented the "collision." The Board notes that the testimony of the Helper actually responsible for the "collision" was not only convoluted, confusing and conflicting, but incredible and in a court of law would be called perjury.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
Award Date: 1980-07-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yardman for all time lost as the result of a thirty-five day suspension assessed for his alleged responsibility in connection with an on-duty injury. The Board finds that the record is devoid of any evidence or testimony supporting the Carrier's finding of responsibility or rule violation on which the disciplined was based.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
Award Date: 1980-06-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor for reinstatement and pay for time lost resulting from his dismissal for allegedly violating operating rules in connection with a derailment. The Board finds that Carrier did not provide clear and convincing proof that Claimant violated the rules cited and the proof was insufficient to support any findings of culpability.
View Award
Neutral: C. Robert Roadley
Parties: UTU vs. Aliquippa & Southern RR Co.
Award Date: 1980-06-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman for removal of a 10-day deferred suspension assessed on a contention that Claimant's negligence in the performance of his duty, resulted in a personal injury to himself. The Board finds that the record presented to it does not support the conclusions reached by the Carrier and that it is axiomatic that in discipline cases the burden of proof rests with the Carrier and that assertions, assumptions, conjectures and the like, are not proof.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific (T&L Lines)
Award Date: 1980-06-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor for time lost attending an investigation and time lost resulting from a five day suspension assessed for allegedly laying off sick under false pretenses and refusal to accept medical attention after being transported to the hospital. Carrier also contended that Claimant's alleged illness was because of not having the use of a portable walkie-talkie radio to facilitate his switching requirements. The Board finds that Claimant produced medical evidence that he was sick and the record reflects no question as to the quality of the medical evidence offered, which was the real test of Claimant's "sickness."
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Award Date: 1980-06-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman for all time lost resulting from an 89-day suspension assessed for his alleged responsibility in connection with train, on which he was working as head brakeman, being operated in excess of speed limits and subsequent derailment causing damage to engines, equipment and track. The Board finds that the evidence of record does not support or sustain Carrier's decision that Claimant violated rules and does not meet the test of proof of negligence required to support their verdict in this case.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Award Date: 1980-06-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Switchman for reinstatement to service with all rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost as a result of his dismissal for allegedly using and having in his possession two cans of beer on company property. Carrier's entire case was built on the testimony of one witness, a Special Agent. The Board finds that it is up to the Carrier in a dismissal case to prove violation in a clear and convincing way, and that it in this case the evidence produced by the Carrier does not convince the Board in a degree sufficient to sustain this dismissal.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
Award Date: 1980-06-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman for removal of a 30-day deferred suspension assessed for failure to protect an assignment for which called. Carrier contended that Claimant feigned illness in order to avoid extra service. The Board finds the evidence is insufficient to support Carrier's position that Claimant marked off under false pretenses and that while the circumstances are suspicious in this case, the burden is on the Carrier to justify discipline by clear and convincing proof.
View Award
Neutral: Robert A. Franden
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1980-06-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for time lost attending an investigation and for the removal of 40 demerits assessed against his personal record for his alleged failure to run with caution when operating a light engine on an industry track and stop short of closed gates, resulting in engine striking and damaging gates. The Board finds that, the record discloses that throughout the day prior to the accident the claimant had advised the yardmaster and others that Unit 2909 was not in satisfactory condition and needed repairs. When he went on duty he inspected the locomotive and listed several defects that needed correction. From our view of the record it appears that the claimant exercised due diligence and made every attempt to operate his locomotive and comply with the rules and regulations of the carrier that could reasonably be required of him, and that the Carrier's finding of guilt was unjustified and unsupported by the record.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-05-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains three (3) separate claims of a Switchtender-Yardman for removal of discipline assessed his record, pay for time lost and pay for attending investigations, discipline assessed for his alleged failure to protect his assignment and falsifying time slip. The Board finds that in two of the cases there was not substantial evidence to support the charges and in the other case, Carrier's refusal of Claimant's request for a recess so that he could procure the attendance of additional witnesses was a procedural error.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1980-05-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in claim for all time lost and removal of discipline assessed for failure to protect the Engineers' extra board and be available for call. Carrier contends that Claimant was allowed to mark off sick for a period of 12 hours and to be available thereafter. While Carrier so contends, they have failed to prove that lay-off was limited to 12 hours. Carrier failed to require the crew caller, who allowed Claimant to lay-off, to appear and testify as a witness at the investigation. Therefore, the alleged 12 hours' limitation for lay-off was not proven by Carrier.
View Award
Neutral: C. Robert Roadley
Parties: UTU vs. Cambria & Indiana Railroad Co.
Award Date: 1980-05-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for all time lost as a result of a seven-day suspension assessed for his alleged insubordination and refusal to obey the order of a trainmaster. The Board finds that it is axiomatic in matters of discipline that the burden of proof rests with the Carrier. In this case, the Board does not find, in the record presented to it, sufficient evidence of probative value to support the charge of insubordination, and therefore that Carrier had not met its burden of proof.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1980-04-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Hostler for time lost attending investigation and for fifteen (15) days' actual suspension assessed for his alleged violation of operating rules, resulting in a sideswipe accident. The Organization contends that the sole cause of the collision was defective brakes on the engine being operated by Claimant, which was in the shop awaiting needed brake repairs. The Board finds that Claimant was not made aware of the reason the unit was in the shop and that Carrier had a duty to warn Claimant that the brakes were defective, and had such been done, the Board is in doubt that the collision would have occurred. In sustaining the claim, the Neutral held that the record will not support a finding that Claimant violated the cited rules.
View Award
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU-E vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1980-04-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in the amount of 1 day's pay and removal of 15 days' deferred suspension. Claimant disciplined for alleged responsibility in derailment. Neutral finds that Claimant made a reverse movement when given a hand signal and the derailment occurred because another crew member had misread a signal. The Board finds that Carrier improperly disciplined Claimant since the record does not contain substantial evidence that he violated the Rule as charged.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Award Date: 1980-04-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeperson for reinstatement to service and in part, her claim for time lost during the period of time she was dismissed from service. Claimant was dismissed from service for the alleged violation of Rule "G" when a small ornate and empty box was found on the floor of the locomotive used on the train on which Claimant was Head Brakeperson. The Carrier held that the box had previously contained a substance which appeared to be marijuana and ordered the Claimant to appear before two trainmasters for interrogation prior to the formal investigation. The Carrier also failed to call several critical witnesses to the investigation and permitted hearsay evidence to be introduced. The Board finds the investigation was poorly conducted and there was insufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion Claimant violated Rule "G", or that, in fact, marijuana had been owned, possessed or used by Claimant on the trip, and that evidence introduced through others was the basis of concluding guilt against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1980-03-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for pay for time lost between his dismissal and subsequent reinstatement, approximately eighty (80) days. Claimant was charged with violation of Rule "G". The Board finds that Carrier has failed in its burden of proving intoxication or a violation of Rule "G" in this case.
View Award
Neutral: Richard R. Kasher
Parties: UTU vs. Long Island Railroad
Award Date: 1980-02-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Trainman for reinstatement to service and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed from service for his responsibility in connection with the uncoupling of a passenger train and insubordination for failing to attend the investigation. As to the first charge, the Board finds that the Carrier failed to establish the necessary burden of proof that Claimant was responsible for the uncoupling of the train. The Board finds that the Carrier also failed to prove that Claimant was insubordinate in failing to attend the investigation and recognizes that when an employee is absent from a hearing, he does so at his own peril unless he is specifically notified that failure to appear could result in a subsequent charge of insubordination.
View Award
Neutral: Jacob I. Karro
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1980-02-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor and two Brakemen for pay for time lost attending investigation and for removal of a 30-day deferred suspension assessed for their alleged failure to properly observe their train in connection with a derailment and damage to the derailed car. The Board finds insufficient basis for the conclusion of Claimants' responsibility or failure to observe operating rules.
View Award
Neutral: Jacob I. Karro
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1980-02-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Conductor and a Brakeman for time lost attending an investigation and their record cleared of a charge that they failed to properly observe their train when a car derailed ten (10) cars ahead of the caboose and went unnoticed, striking a crossover switch, resulting in the trucks being knocked out from under the cars. The Board finds that to establish a failure in duty for purposes of discipline, it is not enough merely to show the derailment was not detected within the short time in which detection was possible.
View Award
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe-Coast Lines
Award Date: 1980-02-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a fireman for reinstatement to service, seniority and other rights unimpaired, with pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed for allegedly engaging in an altercation with round house supervisors while working as a hostler. The Board, in sustaining the claim, finds that the transcript of the investigation leaves the Board of the considered opinion that the incident was precipitated by the round house supervisors and despite their denials, Claimant's allegation that he had been "set up" because he was providing reports to his labor organization of violations of his working agreement was well founded.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Award Date: 1980-02-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an Engineer for pay for time lost as a result of thirty-five (35) day suspension assessed in connection with an accident involving damage to two cars. The Board finds that the Carrier failed in its burden of proof and insufficient evidence was adduced to support its conclusion as to Claimant's culpability. Furthermore, that the evidence adduced failed to show even a casual relationship between such evidence and the rules cited in the notice of discipline.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
Award Date: 1980-02-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claims of a conductor and Brakeman for pay for time lost resulting from actual suspension of thirty (30) days and fifteen (15) days, respectively, assessed in connection with allegedly sacking and removing grain from a derailed car. In sustaining the claims, the Board sets aside the discipline assessed because of the inadequacy of the proof of the named infractions and finds the evidence is simply insufficient to support the charge.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
Award Date: 1980-02-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension from his record with pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined as a result of his alleged failure to properly secure a bad order car in connection with a rear end collision. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds that the evidence adduced was insufficient to support Carrier's conclusion and the discipline assessed.
View Award
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1980-02-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman for removal of a fifteen (15) day deferred suspension from his record assessed in connection with a sideswipe allegedly caused by Claimant's failure to communicate with the engineman and to take necessary action to ensure safety. Claimant contended that he was not familiar with the area and because of no seat in the engine, was required to stand in the center of the cab. In sustaining the claim, Board finds, under the circumstances, that Carrier had failed to establish Claimant was remiss by his actions.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Atlanta & West Point - WRA
Award Date: 1980-02-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Conductor for removal of thirty (30) demerits from his record with pay for time lost assessed for the alleged violation of Operating Rules in connection with a derailment of an engine and cars. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds there was insufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier conclusion as to Claimant's culpability for the derailment or violation of the Operating Rules. Pay for attending investigation was also sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific (T&L)
Award Date: 1980-01-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman for reinstatement to service, seniority rights unimpaired, pay for attending investigation and pay for all time lost while dismissed from service. Claimant was dismissed for his alleged failure to observe a defective switch, resulting in the derailment of fourteen (14) cars. Carrier contends the switch was previously damaged by an object dragging on an east bound train. Organization contends the switch was in proper working order due to the fact the engine and twenty-nine cars passed over the switch prior to the derailment. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds the evidence too conjectural to support the discipline assessed, that Carrier advanced hypothesis rather than direct and immediate evidence to the Claimant, and crew's failure to observe the relevant operating rules.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1980-01-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part, claims of a Conductor and two Brakemen by reducing a ten (10) day suspension to a five (5) day suspension with pay for time lost in excess thereof. Discipline assessed for claimants' alleged responsibility in connection with a sideswipe causing damage to a number of cars. The Board finds, in reducing the suspensions, that a more serious disciplinary action is not warranted, based on the record, because of its lack of clarity and limitations as to proof of negligence by claimants.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Atlanta & West Point - WRA
Award Date: 1980-01-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman for removal of discipline from record, pay for attending investigation and pay for all time lost as a result of a thirty (30) day actual suspension assessed for his alleged violation of Operating Rules in connection with an efficiency test conducted by the Carrier. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds it was improper for Carrier to find Claimant guilty of having violated a portion of an Operating Rule without specifying what portion is meant and that Carrier failed to establish Claimant's actions warranted disciplinary action.
View Award
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-T vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe-CL
Award Date: 1979-12-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman for removal of twenty (20) demerits from his personal record assessed for his alleged failure to protect the movement of his engine, resulting in a minor collision. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds that the Carrier failed to prove, by probative evidence, that Claimant was in violation of the rules as charged, or that he was responsible for the incident which occurred on the date in question.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1979-12-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman discharged for the alleged possession of marijuana for reinstatement, seniority rights unimpaired and with pay for time lost. In sustaining the claim, the Board held that such severe discipline as dismissal must be supported by substantial evidence and not by a mere suspicion or conjecture.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1979-11-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman for removal of a thirty (30) day suspension from his record with pay for all time lost in connection with his alleged failure to comply with Operating Rules, resulting in a derailment. The board finds that Carrier failed in its burden of proof to support their conclusion that claimant shared responsibility in controlling speed of train when, in fact, Claimant had no knowledge of a speed restriction, of which only the Conductor and Engineer were aware.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1979-11-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Conductor for removal of a five (5) day suspension with pay for time lost in connection with his alleged failure to perform industrial switching as instructed. Claimant contends that a bad order car at the Plant prevented him from doing the switching in compliance with instructions given, and had he performed the switching, he would have violated Train Dispatcher's written instructions to arrange his work so as not to outlaw under the Hours of Service Law. The Board finds there was insufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion that Claimant had not acted properly in compliance with instructions given.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1979-11-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman for the removal of a five (5) day suspension with pay for all time lost in connection with his alleged failure to comply with operating rules, causing a derailment of two cars. The Board finds there was insufficient evidence adduced to support Carrier's conclusion as to Claimant's culpability.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1979-11-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Yardman for reinstatement to service, with pay for time lost, less deductions of outside earnings. Claimant was dismissed for alleged failure to protect his assignment. Claimant was not properly given notice of postponement of the investigation and the investigation was held in his absence. In sustaining the claim in part, the Board finds Carrier should be aware that when it proceeds with an investigation in the absence of the charged employee, it must meet the burden of proving notice was properly given, which it held carrier failed to do in this case.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1979-10-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman for all time lost and his record cleared of a five (5) day suspension assessed for his alleged responsibility for an accident, resulting in damage to the Maintenance of Way machinery. In reviewing various possible causes for the accident, the Board finds that it is not the function of the Board or that of the Carrier to arrive at a conclusion based on conjecture. The Carrier is charged with the responsibility to make its case, draw its conclusions and advise the employee of the basis on which he has been found to have responsibility and they failed to do so in this case.
View Award
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa FE-CL
Award Date: 1979-10-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardmen waived investigation and voluntarily accepted 30 demerits for alleged violation of rules caused by taking excessive time for lunch period. Neutral denies employees request for removal of 30 demerits from their personal records and finds no merit to claimant's contention that each of said employees accepted the 30 demerits under duress and waived the formal investigations as scheduled. Neutral rules that accepting the 30 demerits was recognition of admitting rules violations by claimants. Such acceptance appears to have been voluntary on the part of the accused and employees involved were not subjected to duress or treated unfairly. Employees fail in their burden of proof that either of the accused yardmen were coerced in accepting the demerits rather than attending investigation.
View Award
Neutral: Theodore H. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa FE-CL
Award Date: 1979-10-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engine Foreman sustained in request for removal of 10 demerits assessed as result of formal investigation on carrier charge of safety rule violation. Claimant was injured when a long knuckle he was attempting to operate fell on his foot. The Neutral held that Carrier fails in burden of proof that claimant was negligent. It is an uncontested fact that the knuckle pin was missing constituting a defective car.
View Award
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific (Pacific)
Award Date: 1979-09-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Brakeman for removal of thirty (30) demerits from his service record. Claimant was relaying signals, from the Claimant involved in Award No. 5184, to the engineer shoving the cut of cars. The Board finds that the Claimant involved in this case had no responsibility for the cars running through the red stop signal and that the Carrier failed in its burden to prove the charge against him.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
Award Date: 1979-08-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman for time lost and his record cleared of ten (10) days' actual suspension assessed for his alleged failure to properly protect his assignment. The claimant contended that he was not given a proper call. The Carrier relied on the testimony of the Chief Clerk in the crew board room. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds that the Chief Clerk had no way of knowing if the crew caller's records were accurate and that the crew caller should have been present at the investigation. Pay for time lost attending investigation is also sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1979-05-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yardman for removal of five (5) days' deferred suspension from his record and that he be allowed two hours for attending an investigation held in connection with a switching accident resulting in damage to an overhead door at an industrial plant. Claimant was a member of a two-man ground crew and was not equipped with a radio. The move, resulting in the accident, was being controlled by radio signals between the Foreman and the Engineer. The Board finds, under the circumstances, that Claimant had no culpability and Carrier failed to prove its case against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1979-05-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an engineer for time lost as the result of a 30-day suspension assessed for his alleged responsibility in a derailment of four cars. The Neutral held that while Claimant may have exercised bad judgment, there was no evidence that would support a conclusion that he failed to meet the standards of care mandated by the rules with which he was charged of violating. Carrier Member's Dissent to this Award is attached.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1979-04-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of four yardmen that their records be cleared of letters of reprimand assessed for their alleged violation of operating rules in connection with damage to a switch. Claimants' notice of investigation was to develop facts and place responsibility for running through a switch and making a reverse move through the switch resulting in the derailment of one car. At the investigation it was developed that there was a possibility that the switch had been run through and damaged by a foreign line crew. In assessing discipline, the Carrier did so on a basis that if Claimants did not run through the switch, then they were guilty of failure to report the rule violation of the foreign line crew to the proper authority. The Board finds the Carrier admittedly failed to prove its charge and secondly it disciplined Claimants on a basis not included in the charge.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1979-02-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of an Engineer for removal of fifteen (15) days' deferred suspension assessed for allegedly not taking the necessary precautions to avoid a collision. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds there is insufficient evidence to support Carrier's conclusion that there was any negligence on the part of Claimant in this situation.
View Award
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific (Pacific)
Award Date: 1979-01-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for pay for time lost for his alleged violation of operating rule. Claimant was dismissed from the Carrier's service after an investigation on the charge of insubordination. He was subsequently reinstated and claim is for loss of earnings during his period of dismissal. The insubordination charge stems from Claimant's non-compliance with Carrier's instructions to report to a hospital for an evaluation of his physical condition. The Board finds that the Claimant produced a letter from his personal physician at the investigation, indicating that he had advised Claimant that, due to his physical condition, it was inadvisable for him to make the 48-mile trip to the hospital. Claimant had a right to follow the advice of his doctor and the Carrier has failed to prove the very serious charge of insubordination in this case.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee - Lines West
Award Date: 1979-01-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman dismissed for altercation with his conductor, reinstated with approximately 1 month's pay for time lost after seven (7) months out of service. Neutral finds carrier judgement of evidence is lacking creditability. It is determined that conductor provoked the altercation and not the brakeman.
View Award
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern Inc.
Award Date: 1979-01-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen were not remiss in their duties while in the caboose when engineer, fireman and head brakeman were responsible for running a red signal and fouling the main line. Since conductor was working at his desk and rear brakeman's view from cupola was blocked by a high car, their claims for pay lost during suspensions of 30 days is sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Bernard Cushman
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Award Date: 1979-01-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard brakeman who was found not guilty by the court of misdemeanor resulting from possession of food stolen from trackside industry is, nonetheless, denied reinstatement following dismissal by carrier. Neutral, on pages 4 and 5 of decision, stresses fact that the board is not bound by acquittal rendered by jury in district court.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1978-12-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer-claimant, in Award No. 45, was charged with giving false testimony at investigation regarding rail damage and is again found to be without fault. Proof exists that engine was reported to the trainmaster. Neutral finds that superintendent was determined to remove blame from the trainmaster at claimant's expense and the pyramiding of punishment was indefensible. Claimant sustained in pay for time lost amounting to an additional 30 days' suspension.
View Award
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Conrail Corporation
Award Date: 1978-12-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carrier lacks substantive evidence necessary to levy discipline on conductor and trainmen for running through a switch. Record of investigation indicates testimony by the Assistant Supervisor of Tracks that the switch had malfunctioned. Also, testimony by the Assistant Signal Supervisor that a track maintainer had readjusted the switch before he arrived on the scene. Discipline of 30 days' record suspension in the case of each claimant is removed.
View Award
Neutral: Hubert Wyckoff
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal
Award Date: 1978-11-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardman sustained in removal of 5 days' actual suspension and pay for time lost when carrier lacked substantive evidence to prove claimant was asleep during his lunch hour. Claimant was responsive in accord with the rules. Neutral finds no rule that requires an employee to stand or which forbids an employee to sit down or lie down during lunch period.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1978-11-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carrier lacked substantive evidence necessary to prove guilt of engineer when locomotive caused "rail burns." Proof exists that claimant reported locomotive as defective to the trainmaster and was refused another engine. Sustained in pay for time lost resulting from 15 days' suspension.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1978-11-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen reinstated and paid for approximately one (1) year, eleven (11) months' time lost following dismissal for alleged responsibility in journal failure and derailment. Neutral finds that carrier has produced but a small amount of speculative proving only that there was an accident and that nobody can say for certain when, where, what or how it happened.
View Award
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date: 1978-11-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman sustained for removal of 30 demerits assessed for his responsibility in shoving cars through a switch in disposing of road train upon arrival at terminal yard. Neutral finds responsibility lies with the yardmaster who failed to know what yard tracks were clear and failed to properly instruct the crew. Therefore, carrier failed to meet its burden that claimant violated the rule.
View Award
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU-E vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1978-10-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carrier fails in its burden of proof that fireman-helper was in any way responsible for the collision between the diesel consist on which he was performing service and a cement truck at a road-crossing. The engineer concedes the fact of the collision but he asserts that his visibility was obstructed. Further, the engineer testified that claimant was servicing the engine and at no time did he (the engineer) instruct anyone to perform look out. Claimant-fireman is sustained in claim that ten (10) days' deferred suspension be removed from his record.
View Award
Neutral: Louis Yagoda
Parties: UTU-T vs. Former Penn-Central
Award Date: 1978-08-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Trainman sustained in reinstatement with some two (2) and one-half (1/2) years' pay for time lost without health and welfare premiums. Claimant was dismissed following personal injury caused by a fall on snow covered ice when carrier charged him with negligence. Neutral finds carrier failed to produce substantive evidence necessary to prove negligence.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1978-04-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor sustained in removal of 15 days' actual suspension from record and pay for time lost when carrier failed to produce sufficient evidence that claimant was responsible for one of his brakemen mishandling ABD brake equipment when cutting off the engine. Said mishandling caused the train to roll back colliding with another train and causing a derailment. Neutral finds no merit to carrier contention that conductor was remiss by assuming that brakeman knew how to make the cut and apply the air without specific instructions.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Louisville & Nashville
Award Date: 1978-04-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor sustained in removal of thirty (30) days' actual suspension and paid for all time lost. Neutral finds claimant not responsible for train rolling out of track. Carrier failed to produce any evidence that accused employee did not comply with applicable rules when the required 40-pound brake pipe reduction was made prior to engine being detached and upon signal the angle cock was closed.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU-NC&StL vs. Louisville & Nashville
Award Date: 1978-03-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman reinstated to service with seniority unimpaired and pay for all time lost following dismissal for alleged unauthorized possession of scrap metal stolen from an interstate shipment. Neutral finds that claimant had loaned his truck to several yardmen friends who were guilty of the theft and had ridden along with them to deliver the scrap metal to a dealer so that he could take his truck home after the material was unloaded. There was no evidence that this employee had knowledge the material was stolen nor proof that he took part in its removal from company property. Consideration is also given to the fact that he was found not guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction.
View Award
Neutral: Gene T. Ritter
Parties: UTU-NC&StL vs. Louisville & Nashville
Award Date: 1978-03-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman reinstated to service with seniority unimpaired and pay for all time lost following dismissal for alleged violation of Rule "G" - Intoxication. Neutral finds that carrier's proof was insufficient and negligible, largely founded on an assistant trainmaster seeing claimant standing in front of a bar approximately an hour and a half before reporting time. Employee's testimony at the investigation completely refuted the trainmaster as to claimant having alcohol on his breath at time of reporting, and credence is given to the fact that any slurred speech was probably caused by employee having a slight speech impediment.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1978-03-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman sustained for removal of 15 days' actual suspension from record when carrier failed to produce sufficient proof that claimant was responsible for the negligence of a yard helper of his crew who threw the wrong switch causing a derailment. Neutral finds that said helper fully understood the move; the switches were clearly marked; and foreman-claimant could not anticipate that helper would throw the wrong one. Pay for time lost outlawed by employee violation of time limits.
View Award
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1978-01-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardmaster, instead of yard conductor, was at fault when he advised a crew that was required to double into a curved yard track that said track contained 23 rather than 55 cars which was a fact. Claimant sustained in removal of five (5) days' deferred suspension from record when carrier failed to prove excessive speed caused a hard coupling, derailment and injury to two (2) employees.
View Award
Neutral: William H. Coburn
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Award Date: 1978-01-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman, stationed on caboose, found without negligence in his failure to note the sixty-fifth (65) car ahead had derailed. Neutral sustains claim for removal of 20 days' actual suspension and 2,345 miles lost.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1978-01-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman reinstated with seniority unimpaired and pay for all time lost following dismissal for alleged slow down in work performed by his yard assignment. Neutral finds no substantive evidence that crew did in fact slow down despite their strict adherence to the rules since they performed all work assigned to them in seven (7) hours, twenty (20) minutes. Neutral places emphasis on the detailed testimony of the yardmaster under whom claimant was working to the effect that no slow down in work occurred.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Buffalo Creek
Award Date: 1978-01-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard conductor sustained in claim for some 61 days' compensation when deprived of foreman's position through disqualification as discipline for alleged "slow down." Neutral finds carrier lacking any proof that said slow-down occurred as based on the sole opinion of a trainmaster which was never verified. (See INTERPRETATIONS).
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Delaware and Hudson
Award Date: 1977-12-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Fireman (helper) with one and one-half (1-1/2) years' service found without responsibility for the excessive speed indulged in by his engineer with twenty-four (24) years' service, causing train to "run" a properly displayed interlocking stop signal. Claimant sustained in removal of 15 days' actual suspension with payment for contingent benefits including time lost.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Delaware and Hudson
Award Date: 1977-12-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carrier failed to produce substantive evidence that engineer violated Rule "G" despite the fact that he left his engine without permission and visited a location where alcoholic beverages were sold during his tour on duty. Neutral notes that discipline would have been upheld, had claimant been charged with leaving his engine, but the charge is confined to violation of Rule "G". Claim sustained for reinstatement with seniority unimpaired and pay for all time lost including holiday and vacation compensation, but without health and welfare benefits. (See INTERPRETATIONS, SSR Letter 66-78).
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-11-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carrier failed to produce substantive evidence that yard foreman was responsible for the derailment of a car placed on an industry track through any negligent action he may have taken. More likely is the fact that the car was derailed due to an accumulation of ice and snow on the track due to extremely bad weather. Neutral finds that carrier's judgement of guilt on part of claimant was mere conjecture and claim is sustained for removal of 20 days' actual suspension from record and pay for time lost.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1977-08-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard foreman sustained in removal of 10 days' deferred suspension from record. Neutral finds that carrier failed to prove that claimant was negligent when he sustained a personal injury during his yard tour of duty.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1977-08-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in removal of 10 days' deferred suspension from record. Claimant was disciplined when he coupled into cars at an industry in violation of "bluelight" protection. Neutral sustains on a determination that the brakeman giving the signal assumed the responsibility and carrier failed to prove the engineer's guilt.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Denver and Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1977-08-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in removal of 60 demerits from his record and pay for time lost attending investigation. Claimant was disciplined when he put his train into emergency and was unable to stop before hitting rocks on a 1.2% descending mountainous grade. As a result, 29 cars jack-knifed and were derailed causing eighty (80) thousand dollars' damage and injury to the conductor. Neutral finds that carrier failed in proving that claimant could have earlier seen the fallen rocks or that he acted with imprudence in applying the brakes as he did.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-08-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Road freight brakeman-flagman sustained in removal of 10 days' suspension from record and pay for all time lost when charged and disciplined for alleged failure to detect a car in his train which derailed and caused damage to track. The best argument the carrier could present was that a car in claimant's train derailed and rerailed at the point in question. Neutral finds that the carrier failed to make a case in proving that it was the train upon which claimant was performing service which caused the track damage by the alleged derailment and rerailment.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Boston & Maine Corp.
Award Date: 1977-08-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Trainman sustained in removal of 12 demerits and 3 days' suspension from record with pay for all time lost when discipline imposed for alleged responsibility in derailment. Neutral finds that carrier has failed in its burden of proof that claimant was negligent in not keeping a proper lookout. Neutral concludes that claimant, as rear brakeman, acted as promptly as possible in using the caboose air valve to stop the train and in notifying the engineer of the derailment.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Santa Fe - Eastern Lines
Award Date: 1977-06-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Carrier failed to produce substantive evidence at the investigation, held prior to criminal trial, that yardman-brakeman was guilty of immoral conduct or brought discredit on the railroad when so charged for selling cocaine. Claimant was subsequently tried in criminal court where he was found guilty and sentenced to one (1) year. Findings allude to the fact that carrier's convening the investigation prior to the trial resulted in management's impropriety and fatally "flawed" the hearing and disciplinary action due to lack of sufficient evidence. Claimant reinstated with seniority and other rights unimpaired but without pay for time lost due to severity of the offense.
View Award
Neutral: William H. Coburn
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Award Date: 1977-03-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor sustained in the amount of all time lost, amounting to some two (2) months and three (3) days, as result of dismissal on allegation of negligence when his train collided head-on with 33 cars of ballast which rolled out a passing track enroute. In consideration of the charge that claimant was negligent in permitting his train to be operated at a speed in excess of 30 miles an hour, facts indicate that train never exceeded an average speed of 38.34 miles per hour. Therefore, this conductor sitting in the cupola of a darkened caboose some 70 cars behind the locomotive at night did not have the visual acuity nor was he able to accurately estimate the speed of the train, despite his attempt to do so. Since carrier produced no evidence of negligence or failure to exercise that degree of care which might be expected of a prudent and reasonable man in the case of claimant, the discipline is set aside and claim sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1977-02-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman sustained in removal of 30 days' actual suspension with pay for all time lost. Neutral finds that Carrier failed to present sufficient evidence at investigation to prove Claimant's responsibility in connection with derailment.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland
Award Date: 1976-12-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard helper sustained in removal of thirty (30 days' actual suspension from his record and pay for all time lost when as an extra yard helper he allegedly refused a call as extra road brakeman. Neutral finds carrier lacking in proof in view of the "garbled" facts involved in claimant's conversation with crew caller. Neutral also considers a thirty (30) day suspension under the circumstances as an abuse of carrier's discretion.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E&C vs. Southern Railway
Award Date: 1976-10-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer reinstated to service following dismissal and paid for all time lost. Board states that extenuating circumstances absolve the engineer from blame in alleged responsibility for collision and violation of operating rules. Such extenuating circumstances not described.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E&C vs. Southern Railway
Award Date: 1976-10-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer reinstated to service following dismissal for sleeping on duty and paid for all time lost. Board cites conflicting testimony between two witnesses which creates doubt it believes should be, and is, resolved in favor of the claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern Inc.
Award Date: 1976-09-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen in interdivisional passenger service sustained in the removal of discipline from record and passenger mileage lost caused by attending investigation. Claimants were charged for their responsibility in a burned off journal on a passenger car causing derailment and damage to track and switches. At an intermediate point an employee noticed fire around the wheel of the car and reported same to operator who was unsuccessful in contacting crew by radio. The journal "fell" just prior to arrival at the next station. Neutral finds that carrier totally failed in producing proof the claimants failed to use due care or were negligent in not discovering the condition prior to failure and derailment.
View Award
Neutral: John F. Sembower
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1976-08-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim for removal of reprimands and/or discipline assessed for failure to properly spot car at an industry, resulting from malfunction of radio equipment. Discussion of what constitutes proper notice.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: BLE vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1976-08-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer reinstated with seniority unimpaired and pay for all time lost when he was dismissed for allegedly stealing a case of Carnation Products from the Carnation Company while performing switching at the plant. Following arrest upon complaint of the Carnation Company, carrier dismissed claimant prior to acquittal by the Superior Court in the State of Indiana. In view of his being found innocent by a court, neutral considers the dismissal as improper.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-08-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Fireman (Helper) sustained in claim of pay for all time lost resulting from fifteen (15) days' suspension when disciplined for his responsibility in burned journal causing derailment of two (2) cars in train upon which he was working. Board finds carrier failed in its burden of proof. Facts indicate that carrier officials were knowledgeable of smoke and heat from a car defect miles before derailment occurred, yet let the train proceed. In addition, repeated inspections of train by the brakemen failed to reveal a defective car despite repeated signals from "hotbox" detectors along the track. Board also accepts testimony of general car foreman that journal could have been consumed by flame and still not be visible to crew members.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-08-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Fireman (helper) sustained in claim for removal of fifteen (15) actual days of suspension from record and pay for all time lost. Claimant, a promoted engineer, operating the locomotive in freight service was disciplined for failure to control the speed of his train on a sharply descending mountainous grade necessitating the setting of hand brakes and retainers on cars to slow down. Some delay to the train ensued resulting in the discipline. Neutral finds carrier totally failed in their burden of proof that claimant did not exercise his full efficiency in required train handling.
View Award
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU-T vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1976-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman sustained in appeal of 38 days' actual discipline assessed following investigation for claimant's alleged involvement in a bar room brawl which brought "discredit upon the Penn Central Transportation Company." Board finds that carrier failed in its burden of proof that whatever took place brought discredit upon the company.
View Award
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU-T vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1976-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor sustained in appeal for removal of 42 days' actual discipline assessed following investigation for claimant's alleged involvement in bar room brawl which brought "discredit upon the Penn Central Transportation Company." Board finds that carrier failed in its burden of proof that whatever took place brought discredit upon the company.
View Award
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU-T vs. Penn Central Transportation Co.
Award Date: 1976-06-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor sustained from discipline of dismissal on charges that he would lay off sick as subterfuge to avoid carrying out his assignments of yard switching; that he did lay off sick during his assignment causing delay to crew to which he was assigned; that he used abusive language and engaged in improper personal conduct and activities after laying off sick. Board determines that carrier failed in its burden of proof on all three (3) charges. Facts indicate that claimant carried out all his assignments prior to laying off sick; that he was informed that it was his right to lay off sick if that be his choice; and that carrier officials were entirely wrong in hunting claimant down in a tavern after he left company property and interrogating him in a company car after he was located since carrier officials did not possess the expertise to determine whether claimant was sick or not sick.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Conrail - Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1976-06-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard brakeman dismissed after failure to protect his assignment, but public law board in consideration of the crew caller's testimony at the investigation finds that facts vague and indefinite as to whether the accused was given a proper call to report. Due to a definite question as to whether carrier properly shouldered the required burden of proof in the specific instance resulting in dismissal, board reinstates. Past work record also considered indicating a poor work record relative to excessive absenteeism, and for this reason pay for time lost amounting to approximately a year limited to three (3) months.
View Award
Neutral: I. M. Lieberman
Parties: BLE vs. Port Authority - Trans Hudson
Award Date: 1976-05-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer sustained in removal of discipline from record and pay for all time lost. Claimant was suspended for two (2) weeks for his responsibility in a derailment which the carrier blamed on train speed in excess of five (5) miles per hour. Carrier failed to produce substantial evidence necessary to prove the charge.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Conrail - Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1976-05-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Yard Crew was suspended for five (5) days for alleged responsibility in connection with a derailment resulting when a portion of rail broke out. The Board held that the Carrier did not present sufficient evidence to justify the imposition of discipline and that Carrier's conclusion of guilt was arbitrary and capricious.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Conrail - Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1976-05-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Yardman was suspended for fifteen (15) days for alleged responsibility in connection with a yard derailment which resulted from an apparent track failure. The Board held that the Carrier did not produce any evidence to demonstrate the cause, probable or otherwise, of the derailment or to support a conclusion of guilt.
View Award
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna - Conrail
Award Date: 1976-05-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of yard crew for time lost resulting from a 5-day suspension assessed for failure to observe that a cut of cars being shoved had derailed and additional damage had resulted thereby. The Board held that the Carrier had failed its burden to provide sufficient evidence to justify the imposition of discipline and that perhaps they were unduly influenced by Claimant's prior discipline records.
View Award
Neutral: Hubert Wyckoff
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal RR Association
Award Date: 1976-05-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Yardman was dismissed for allegedly not being available and missing a call. The Crew Caller and Trainmaster each testified that they had called Claimant's telephone number twice and could hear the telephone ringing but received no answer. Claimant testified that he was at home at the time these calls were placed and his telephone did not ring. The Telephone Company in a letter to Claimant stated that it was a possibility that his telephone was out of order on this date. In view of these contradictions the Board held that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the discharge.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and Northwestern
Award Date: 1976-05-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Conductor was suspended for 60 days on an allegation of failure to promptly complete paper work and tie up in order to qualify for final terminal delay. The Board held that there was no substantial evidence to support Carrier's conclusion that the Claimant deliberately took excessive time to complete his work.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and Northwestern
Award Date: 1976-05-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Brakeman was suspended for 20 days for alleged responsibility in connection with failure to comply with a Train Order. The Board held that there was no substantial evidence to support a finding that Claimant Rear Brakeman was in any way responsible for failure to get train in clear.
View Award
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1976-05-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Trainman dismissed for alleged personal negligence resulting in injury, sustained in claim for pay for all time lost from date of dismissal to date of carrier's offer of reinstatement subject to deduction of outside earnings. Claimant tripped on piece of scrap metal while checking cars at night when lantern was required, and board finds that carrier failed in its burden of proof that employee was not exercising reasonable care in performance of his duties.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific T&L Lines
Award Date: 1976-05-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Brakeman was dismissed for an alleged failure to give emergency stop signals to an approaching train resulting in a collision with rear of Claimant's train which was fouling main track. The Board held that under all the circumstances involved the evidence did not support the Carrier's imposition of discipline against Claimant.
View Award
Neutral: Louis Norris
Parties: UTU vs. Belt Railway of Chicago
Award Date: 1976-05-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Car Retarder Operator was disciplined for an alleged responsibility in connection with a derailment and resultant track damage. The Board held that the Carrier failed to sustain its burden of proof "by substantial probative evidence preponderating in its favor."
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1976-05-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for all time lost resulting from suspension for an alleged failure to control train speed over a bridge in compliance with Train Order. The Board found that the conductor did call the order to the attention of the engineer before reaching the bridge and the train's speed was substantially reduced and in the judgement of claimant and other crew members was in compliance with the order. Board held that Carrier's procedure for determining train speed was crude and that they were unable to agree that the claimant did not comply with the rules.
View Award
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1976-05-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Yardmen were disciplined for alleged responsibility in connection with a sideswipe accident. The Board held that the fact that the accident happened is not substantial evidence of fault and the Carrier had not sustained the burden of proof required of it.
View Award
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU-E vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1975-11-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. Carrier held an investigation on a charge that Claimant had brought discredit upon the Company and discharged him. The criminal charge was dismissed by the Court and the Carrier converted the discharge into a suspension of 76 days. The Board held that mere accusation of a criminal offense which was dismissed by Court Order did not bring discredit on the Company.
View Award
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. St. Louis-San Francisco
Award Date: 1975-10-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: In sustaining reinstatement and pay for time lost with "fringe benefits undisturbed" the Referee found that the carrier did not meet its obligation of proving claimant's conduct was "unbecoming an employee." The carrier member dissented from this award on the basis that pay for all time lost did not include "fringe benefits." The referee and the employee member of the Board, General Chairman John Reynolds, answered the carrier's dissent and stated that "fringe benefits are considered, weighed and bargained just as certainly as the dollar in the pay check." In other words, fringe benefits are a "wage equivalent." It is suggested that any future claim for reinstatement and "pay for time lost" should have added to it "including the wage equivalent of fringe benefits."
View Award
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Award Date: 1975-07-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Trainman was assessed 20 demerits for an alleged failure to perform duties properly. Claimant was riding a car on Track #5 when his crew coupled their engine to cars on Track #9 causing several cars to roll free downgrade into the side of two cars standing on another track causing damage thereto. The Board held that claimant was not guilty of improper performance and was not the contributing cause of the accident and, therefore, removed the 20 demerits discipline and allowed compensation for attending the hearing and investigation.
View Award
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Award Date: 1975-07-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Yard Foreman was assessed 20 demerits for his alleged responsibility for the derailment of a car among a number of cars being handled in a shoving movement by his crew. The Board held that the Carrier's assumption that the cars being shoved were not properly handled does not constitute substantial evidence and sustains the claim for removal of the discipline, two days' lost time and 80 miles travel allowance.
View Award
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1975-06-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Conductor was assessed a reprimand on a charge of absenting himself from duty without proper authority. Claimant in pool freight service, because of personal plans and commitments laid off at his away from home terminal when the train he was to take back to the home terminal was delayed. Claimant contended he requested and received permission from the Dispatcher to lay off, although he had been instructed by a Carrier official to return to the motel and get his rest so that he would be qualified under the Hours of Service Law to handle a later train. The Board found the Carrier produced no competent or probative evidence to sustain the charge and if the Carrier wanted to prove the capability of the claimant solely by written records, then it should have produced a competent witness to authenticate said records. Claimant's requests that notation of discipline be expunged from his personal record and for pay for time lost attending the investigation were sustained.
View Award
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1975-05-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Trainman was suspended for thirty (30) days on a charge of being under the influence of intoxicants, several other operating rules such as absenting himself from work without permission. Claimant admitted having a beer with his lunch some seven hours before he was scheduled to go on duty. The Board finds the evidence of record does not support the charge of being under the influence of alcohol and that the total conduct of the Trainmaster was incompatible with a supervisor handling an employee allegedly guilty of violating Rule "G" and sustained the claim for all time lost.
View Award
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Award Date: 1975-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Trainman was assessed 20 demerits for an alleged failure to observe his footing resulting in an injury to his ankle when alighting from a car. The Board held the Carrier had failed to sustain the burden imposed upon it and sustained the claim for removal of the discipline assessed and allowed claimant compensation for attending the hearing and investigation.
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Award Date: 1974-09-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: In sustaining claim for "pay for all time lost" in a reinstatement case, board finds original discharge "appears to have been founded on mere suspicion." The board also considers and concludes that "pay for all time lost" does not include Health and Welfare benefits.
View Award
Neutral: C. Robert Roadley
Parties: UTU-E vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1974-04-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Assumptions rather than proof were the basis of discharge of an engine crew suspected of theft when lading from their train (which had parted) was found at various places near and on the engine. They freely admitted handling the lading found on the engine with the intention of turning it over to proper authority at an advance station. Their plans were precluded by intervening carrier action, however. Treating the facts (or lack of them) at length, the neutral said in part: ".. . The Board does not find evidence of a substantial character in the record to support the action of the carrier ... The investigation did not develop the facts sufficient to impartially determine claimants' responsibility ..." Also an issue was the deduction for outside
earnings. No deduction was allowed.
View Award
Neutral: Thomas L. Hayes
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1974-01-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Trainmen suspended 15 days (deferred) as a result of a collision, Findings: "The board is of the opinion that there is no proof indicating the claimants were in any way responsible for the collision. Moreover, carrier failed to show what action claimants could have taken to avoid the accident."
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1973-12-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Head-on collision fatal to four precipitated the discharge of remaining crew members who were reinstated without pay six months later. Cause of the accident was attributed to a train order that was never received. The entire record - which even included lie detector tests - revealed the credibility of the carrier and its chief witness to be literally non-existent. While noting that the investigation was "fair and competent" in manner, the referee observed fatal deficiencies in pertinent areas. One brief passage of his lengthy comment reads: "Yet, having developed a comprehensive record, they (carrier) ignored it in assessing discipline. Only where good cause is shown by clear and convincing proof should a man's employment be terminated. The record here contains no such proof."
View Award
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-S vs. Los Angeles Junction Railway
Award Date: 1973-08-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains removal of discipline and pay for all time lost by yard helper who requested to be marked off sick upon arrival at his point of work and was charged by carrier with feigning illness. Neutral rules that physician's examination with report that he found "no objective symptoms of active disease or illness", did not amount to clear and positive proof required to support discipline and claimant may have been too ill to work at his reporting time.
View Award
Neutral: Thomas L. Hayes
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1973-05-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Charged with disloyalty for advising injured employee of his rights, claimant local chairman was given 30 days' suspension on the contention he promoted litigation against the employer. Record showed the claimant's advice was sought by the injured person and that it was proper and of a type protected under the U.S. Constitution. Neutral ruled further that other issues raised by the carrier to justify their disciplinary actions were without merit.
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern
Award Date: 1973-04-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant reported for duty. Shortly thereafter he became ill, requested and was given relief. When attempting to mark up again he was told he must see the superintendent before return to work would be permitted. Instead, he filed a grievance. Subsequently he was charged with and dismissed for a series of alleged violations including insubordination and failure to protect assignment. Board ruled that carrier did not treat the situation as a medical case, therefore, superintendent had no right to hold the claimant out of service and that the evidence in the record failed to show any bad faith or malingering by claimant. "For the discipline to stand, it must be supported by the record alone," the neutral said.
View Award
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Los Angeles Junction
Award Date: 1973-04-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Stolen property found on locomotive for which engineer was charged and subsequently dismissed. Held: "There is not a scintilla of evidence that claimant handled the (stolen goods) at any time or participated in planning or carrying out the theft or any other improper action. Nor is the record sufficiently clear to establish that he actually observed or was aware that a theft was in process or had taken place." Nearly two years' back pay awarded.
View Award
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Award Date: 1973-04-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Trainman was assessed 30 demerits for his alleged failure to observe position of derail when the engine derailed after moving through split type derail. The Board sustained the claim for removal of the discipline and for time lost attending the hearing and investigation, holding the Carrier had failed to sustain the burden of proof imposed upon it.
View Award
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Award Date: 1973-04-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of yardman for removal of discipline and pay for time lost attending hearing and investigation wherein he was assessed 45 demerits for an alleged failure to properly secure 3 cars left standing on an incline. When attempting to make a coupling to the 3 cars set out by Claimant's crew, the coupling failed and the cars proceeded down the incline causing serious damage to an industrial plant. The Board found that the assessment of discipline was not supported by sufficient evidence.
View Award
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Award Date: 1972-07-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Trainman was dismissed for an alleged failure to fulfill his responsibility to use the emergency valve or advise engineer that the movement of the train was too fast after passing a restricting signal. The Board held that since Carrier's action in dismissing claimant was not supported by the evidence he would be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and with payment of all time lost.
View Award
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Award Date: 1972-05-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Conductor was assessed 60 demerits for allegedly refusing to follow instructions of Trainmaster which subsequently resulted in his being discharged though later reinstated without compensation for time held from service. The Board held that the Carrier failed to prove by substantive evidence that claimant had refused to follow instructions and sustained his claim for time lost.
View Award
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Award Date: 1972-05-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant Trainman was assessed 30 demerits for an alleged violation of a Safety Rule in not being properly braced when sitting in a caboose when an attempted coupling was made injuring him. The Board found the Claimant had done everything required of him by the Rule and sustained his claim since Carrier's assessment of discipline was not supported by the evidence.
View Award
Neutral: Alfred G. Albert
Parties: UTU-T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claims of Yard Helpers for removal of 30 demerits from their personal records. This is a companion claim to that decided in Award No. 1 and Claimants were disciplined for violation of operating rules and failure to take necessary action to insure the safe movement of the train. The Board finds from the evidence of record that Carrier has failed to establish the specific duty required of Claimants which they did not perform with reasonable dispatch and their claim must be sustained. (undated award)
View Award
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-T vs. Missouri Pacific (Former C&EI)
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Yard Helper for removal of a twenty (20) day deferred suspension from his record with pay for all time lost. Claimant was disciplined for his alleged failure to protect the service of the Carrier. Claimant, due to limited employment with the Carrier, was assisted by a supervisor of the Carrier in obtaining employment on another Carrier. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds the Claimant complied with the understanding reached with the supervisor in trying to stay available for the Carrier's service if needed, but only in compliance with the Hours of Service Law. (undated award)
View Award
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a Brakeman for reinstatement to service with seniority rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost. Claimant was dismissed for allegedly falsifying a personal injury report regarding an injury he suffered to his ankle while on duty. The notice of the investigation, received by the Claimant, stated it was for the purpose of determining whether or not Claimant suffered a personal injury while working as a Brakeman, as indicated in his report. In sustaining the claim, the Board confined its review to the notice of the investigation. The Board was unable to find that the Carrier established sufficient evidence that the Claimant did not suffer the injury, as alleged. The Board also was unable to find that the Carrier presented sufficient evidence to determine Claimant was guilty of an infraction within the confines of the investigation. The Board disregarded other asserted violations, because they were beyond the scope of the investigation.
View Award
Neutral: Rodney E. Dennis
Parties: UTU vs. South Buffalo Railway Co.
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for removal of a ninety (90) day suspension and pay for all time lost. Claimant was charged with and disciplined for failure to properly control his train which resulted in a sideswipe and considerable property damage. Based upon the facts contained in the record of investigation, the Board finds that the Carrier has failed in its burden of proof and the discipline imposed was arbitrary and unwarranted. (undated award)
View Award
Neutral: Robert Camp
Parties: UTU v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Award Date:
Synopsis: Sustains claim of brakeman for removal of discipline and pay for time lost. Claimant was injured during the performance of his job (twisted ankle) and was disciplined for failure to be alert to underfoot conditions. The Board finds no evidence to suggest Claimant could have prevented the injury under the circumstances and sets aside the discipline.
View Award