Reference no: EM131281660
From the Findings of the Arbitration Board... The record before the Board indicates that on September 27, 1982, the Claimant, Engineer E. P. Robertson and crew went on duty about 7:00 P.M. at McComb, Mississippi, to take a train to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. They went off duty at 10:40 P.M. at Baton Rouge and were immediately transported to their designated lodging at the Prince Murat Inn to rest because, according to the usual routine of their assignment, they would be required after the rest period to work the return assignment back to McComb. The crew was thereafter called at 2:30 A.M., September 28, and listed for work at 3:30 A.M.
The testimony indicates that Mr. Robertson did not take his rest when he arrived at the motel; and that he and Brakeman Reeves went to the motel bar and stayed until midnight. He drank at least one drink and ordered a drink to go in a plastic cup, according to the testimony of the bartender Mr. J. D. Morales and the waitress Ms. K. M. Sword. Sometime after midnight, he and Mr. Reeves met with Clerk Janet Byrd, and it developed that he, Brakeman Reeves, and Ms. Byrd boarded the cab of the locomotive together. The crew had been called at 2:30 A.M., listed for work at 3:30 A.M., and departed Baton Rouge at 4:15 A.M. Ms. Byrd later told company officials that Mr. Robertson invited Ms. Byrd to "run" the engine.
At approximately 5:05 A.M. on September 28, 1982, the train Extra 9629 East (GS-2-28) derailed 43 cars on the single main track of the Hammond District in Livingston, Louisiana. Of the derailed cars, 36 were tank cars; 27 of these cars contained various regulated hazardous materials, and 5 contained flammable petroleum products. Fires broke out in the wreckage, and smoke and toxic gases were released into the atmosphere. Explosions of two tank cars that had not been punctured caused them to rocket violently. Some 3000 persons living within a five-mile radius of the derailment site were evacuated for as long as two weeks. Nineteen residences and other buildings in Livingston were destroyed or severely damaged.
Toxic chemical products were spilled and absorbed into the ground requiring extensive excavation of contaminated soil and its transportation to a distant dump site. This caused the closing of the track for a year; and the derailment costs to the Carrier are presently over $25,000,000, with several lawsuits pending. The Carrier does not hold that Mr. Robertson caused the derailment, for its experts determined that the derailment was caused by equipment failure. The Carrier did, however, find that Mr. Robertson was responsible for three serious rule violations:
(1) drinking while subject to duty [Rule G],
(2) speeding at several locations during his trip, and
(3) allowing an unauthorized passenger to ride in the locomotive.
We find that substantial evidence of record exists to support the Carrier's findings in this case.
Two employees from the Prince Murat Inn, J. D. Morales and Kelly M. Sword, testified that two drinks were served to Mr. Robertson containing one and one-half ounces of alcohol, one he drank at the bar and the other was put in a plastic glass to go. Mr. Robertson knew full well that he was on a short layover and that he was subject to duty, after a limited rest period. When an engineer, entrusted with the responsibility for a train, and particularly when entrusted with responsibility for a train containing hazardous chemicals, spends a portion of his short layover in a bar drinking any amount of alcohol, he is guilty of the highest degree of irresponsibility.
Such is a clear violation of Rule G, for that employee is "subject to duty" within the explicit language of that rule. Clearly one drink by an employee subject to duty causes some impairment of that individual, and the Carrier and the public have a right not to have a train operated by an individual impaired to any degree. Mr. Robertson acted in a most irresponsible manner by purchasing alcoholic beverages while subject to duty and he was clearly in violation of Rule G.
The evidence of record, including the testimony of Supervisor of Communications R. L. Mont and Supervisor Instructor A. J. Puth, make it evident that Mr. Robertson's train was operated well beyond the timetable authorized at several locations during the trip.... ... Mr. Robertson's widely publicized misconduct not only caused a national embarrassment to the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, but tarnished the high professional reputation of locomotive engineers throughout the Country. The discipline of dismissal is appropriate. Claim denied.
Case Questions
1. Company Rule G prohibits the use of alcohol or drugs not only while on duty but also while "subject to duty." Give your opinion as to whether an employer can properly regulate the actions of its employees when they are off duty and not being paid.
2. Should Engineer Robertson be returned to service upon successful completion of the EAP alcohol rehabilitation program?