Railroaders' Nostalgia > Investigations

With all the sand house about the investigations,it reminded me
of one I was involved in way back in the 1980's.
I don't recall the details but I do remember what happened.
Right in the middle of it,the door burst open and in
came a couple of guys in briefs and dancing to a Boombox.
Back in those days the guys were popular with women.They had a
name,but I can't recall it.
It took everything in my power to not laugh.I was wanting to
roll on the floor.I did the best to cover my mouth.I was a
foreman and I was "suppose" to act as one and side with the
investigators.It was down right FUNNY!
That was the end of the investigation!
One of the "defendants" was a joker and altho not proven
he was blamed for the "interruption".

Uncle Joe,Seffner,Fl.

Oh lord help me, I would so do this.

Posted from Android

DG .
Unknown, US

I've been in so many of these as a witness or union rep. Even 3 or so times as a principal. One thing about it, you could tell in a hurry if the investigating officer or his/her witnesses knew anything. My favorites were always the times that a union rep (s) took over and ran the proceeding into the ground which might take many hours or even days. However, remember one investigation where the company officer (and well known railfan) totally shut off a union representative known for successfully disrupting and winning many hearings in the end. Although in the end said union man won the case on appeal as all the principals who were at fault did not get the same amount of days suspended without pay.

We had one where the accused insisted upon attending his dismissal appeal before the Labor Board. He showed up in a limousine, wearing a purple crushed velvet suit, and had the two girls that were with him in high heels and short skirts wait outside. After the company and the organization presented their case, the neutral told the organization rep "tell him not to spend his reinstatement check!"

We also had a gung-ho new assistant TM at Elko who was going to show everybody who he was. There were two "paired track" locals between Elko and Winnemucca. One ran each way on the double track, and laid overnite at the other end, with Saturday off, the other had Sunday off. (Everybody can guess where this is going, right?) A car got derailed on an industry track, and he immediately cited the crew, and wouldn't let the LC talk him out of it. So the griever said OK, I'll see you in the investigation!
All four crew members were held off, and when the Conducting Officer asked the Conductor why it happened, he said "I don't know, I was about 120 miles away on the other track which uses a different radio frequency!"

That was the end of the investigation, and they didn't even cite the right crew...

I was the conductor on a westbound train on the Alhambra sub one night, Colton sub it was called then. We came to a stop at Aurant, which is a few miles east of Los Angeles. At that time, the rear brakeman was required to inspect as much of the train as possible at every opportunity.
We came to a stop and my rear man got up to do his thing. Since our HOS was up right then, I told him to sit down and relax.
Suddenly, out of the dark, came a certain ATM who was definitely not one of the sharper tools in the box. The conversation went like this:
"Mr. Black, are you familiar with the provisions of Rule 829?"
"Ye, didn't the head man roll a train somewhere?"
"What's rolling a train got to do with this,?" our rocket scientist asked.
"You asked about Rule 829," I replied.
"I mean Rule 827, are you familiar with the provisions of Rule 827?"
"Yes I am."
He looked at my seated rear brakie, and said, "It sure doesn't look like its being complied with here," he said.
Now this is where I just should have kept my mouth shut and let him call an investigation and reveal his ignorance at that time, however I said "Well, E---, I don't think that rule applies when you are dead on the law, does it?
"Oh, are you dead on the law? I'll call you a ride."
By doing so, he at least did something useful. He stalked off the caboose with a "curses, foiled again," demeanor about him.

Brian Black
Retired SP/UP Conductor

tehachcond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was the conductor on a westbound train on the
> Alhambra sub one night, Colton sub it was called
> then. We came to a stop at Aurant, which is a few
> miles east of Los Angeles. At that time, the rear
> brakeman was required to inspect as much of the
> train as possible at every opportunity.
> We came to a stop and my rear man got up to do
> his thing. Since our HOS was up right then, I
> told him to sit down and relax.
> Suddenly, out of the dark, came a certain ATM
> who was definitely not one of the sharper tools in
> the box. The conversation went like this:
> "Mr. Black, are you familiar with the
> provisions of Rule 829?"
> "Ye, didn't the head man roll a train
> somewhere?"
> "What's rolling a train got to do with this,?"
> our rocket scientist asked.
> "You asked about Rule 829," I replied.
> "I mean Rule 827, are you familiar with the
> provisions of Rule 827?"
> "Yes I am."
> He looked at my seated rear brakie, and said,
> "It sure doesn't look like its being complied with
> here," he said.
> Now this is where I just should have kept my
> mouth shut and let him call an investigation and
> reveal his ignorance at that time, however I said
> "Well, E---, I don't think that rule applies when
> you are dead on the law, does it?
> "Oh, are you dead on the law? I'll call you a
> ride."
> By doing so, he at least did something useful.
> He stalked off the caboose with a "curses, foiled
> again," demeanor about him.
>
> Brian Black
> Retired SP/UP Conductor

I would have told him it will cost x number of dollars to compile because I'm breaking the HOS act

I would of asked him if he wanted the rear man to walk the train, he would have to tell him. If he did, the ATM would be on the ropes for ordering an employee to violate the law and he would have to pay the freight. :):)


Nudge

Statement made by a now former boss, in front of two union stewards no less.
"If a steward is there, there will be discipline."
Second level boss was not amused when he had deal with the grievance.

ExSPCondr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We had one where the accused insisted upon
> attending his dismissal appeal before the Labor
> Board. He showed up in a limousine, wearing a
> purple crushed velvet suit, and had the two girls
> that were with him in high heels and short skirts
> wait outside. After the company and the
> organization presented their case, the neutral
> told the organization rep "tell him not to spend
> his reinstatement check!"
>
> We also had a gung-ho new assistant TM at Elko who
> was going to show everybody who he was. There
> were two "paired track" locals between Elko and
> Winnemucca. One ran each way on the double track,
> and laid overnite at the other end, with Saturday
> off, the other had Sunday off. (Everybody can
> guess where this is going, right?) A car got
> derailed on an industry track, and he immediately
> cited the crew, and wouldn't let the LC talk him
> out of it. So the griever said OK, I'll see you
> in the investigation!
> All four crew members were held off, and when the
> Conducting Officer asked the Conductor why it
> happened, he said "I don't know, I was about 120
> miles away on the other track which uses a
> different radio frequency!"
>
> That was the end of the investigation, and they
> didn't even cite the right crew...



Was that person happen to be Wonzo?

I might as well mention the last investigation I attended.
I was working as a TM at Santa Fe's Corwith yard. One night we had a set of road power on the lead waiting for the track with their train to be released. A switch job pulled onto the lead behind them, waiting for their next track to open up. When the road power backed up after the blue flag came down on their track, they hit the switcher and bent the steps on the yard job. After interviewing all involved I determined the road conductor had told his power to backup when the track wasn't clear behind them. I gave the conductor a letter of reprimand, the least thing I could do. He disagreed with my conclusion and asked for an investigation.

The hearing officer sent out charge letters with the usual half dozen rule violations for the road conductor, road engineer and trainee, yard crew and yard engineer. Now I was real popular. Anyway, it took months to come up with a time when all the different union reps could be brought together for the investigation.

When the day came we had so many crewmen and union reps and company witnesses, you would have thought we were investigating a 40 car derailment.
The first unusual thing that happened was the hearing officer (Asst Supt) allowed all the witnesses in the room from the get go. I thought this was odd, but as I sat there listening to the crews testify I was reminded of a lot of details I had forgotten. This had been a minor incident as far as I was concerned and I had moved on. The time it taken to get everyone together for the investigation had helped most of the details to fade from my memory. As I listened my memory was refreshed and I was glad we had been allowed in the room.

The conductors defense, presented by his rep, was that the switch job had come out on the lead after the conductor had told his power to backup. I don't remember the order people gave testimony, but I know the company witness were the ATM, YM, Mech Foreman and me. When my turn came the conductor's rep asked how I had decided to place all the blame on the conductor with so many other people being involved? I explained how I had interviewed the ATM and YM, road engineer, conductor and yard engineer. I went into a fair amount of detail of what the yard engineer had told me, because he had the best seat in the house to what had happened. His foreman and helper had gone to the crew lobby to get coffee. After I related the yard engineers story the rep asked to call the yard engineer to testify.

The rep asked the yard engineer if he had heard the trainmaster's testimony? Yard engineer says yes, rep asks if testimony is accurate? Yard engineer says he never talked to the trainmaster (me). I think there were some gasps in the room. Well, I was feeling pretty low right about then. I was thinking it looked pretty bad for me. Sensing his gotcha moment, the next question was, how truthful do you think the trainmaster' testimony was? The engineer replied, "it was right on the money, that's what I remember happened." He asked again if there was anything untruthful about my testimony and the engineer said I had described events as they unfolded. My heart started beating again and a little color returned to my pale skin.

At some point in my testimony I had said I didn't believe the road engineer had violated any of the rules he was charged with, the yard crew had been parked behind the road power for quite a while and were cleared of their charges. The hearing officer found the road conductor responsible and the letter of reprimand stood. Later, the superintendent told me I started too low with my discipline, if I had offered something higher up the discipline list to start, he might have been happy to negotiate something less, like a letter of reprimand. Years later I got a call from Labor Relations, they asked if I could help them, they were defending the letter at an arbitration hearing. I said I had nothing to add.

The yard engineer and I talked later on, I was curious how I could have done such a good job making up an accurate story. We both remembered I had interviewed him, on the telephone, instead of face to face. Seems we both forgot a little about that night.

Great story OliveHeights, thanks. I would always type up what people said when I interviewed them and sometimes ask for a written statement from them.

No, the ATM was not Wardell, not even in the same state.

He was an Elko switchman, and in addition to the wrong half of the paired track mistake, he got himself a $10,000 personal FRA fine for piloting #5 from Weso to Winnemucca with a student engineer's certificate.

Train dispatcher gets 5 days off for failure to protect a track car lineup when he allowed a train to leave ahead of the time stated on the line up. Right before the suspension started this clown comes to the office and tells everyone within earshot (which included the Chief Train Dispatcher and DIvision Superintendent) that he a trip lined up, would not lose money due to his job insurance, etc. Our Supt then was a former train dispatcher and one of the best all around managers I ever worked for. His comments were to the effect of "I'll show that stupid SOB next time he gets in trouble". As things sometimes come to be a year and a half or so later, the same train dispatcher repeats this very same stunt. Discipline this time was 3 days. Job insurance and Railroad Retirement would not pay for less than 5 days. I would say the Supt made his point. Ha Ha.

tehachcond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Well, E---, I don't think that rule applies when
> you are dead on the law, does it?
> "Oh, are you dead on the law? I'll call you a
> ride."
> By doing so, he at least did something useful.
> He stalked off the caboose with a "curses, foiled
> again," demeanor about him.
>
> Brian Black
> Retired SP/UP Conductor


I would guess Mr. Black is speaking of Mr. Brown.

Take Care, Stay Safe, Have Fun!

Larry

Larry, I would guess you are right!
G

It's easy to remember an investigation when you're the "defendant", i.e., the one who has been charged with various rules violations and has to try to explain himself. I found myself called to a formal investigation almost thirty years ago (man, where does the time go?) when I was working as a clerk at Santa Fe. At that time the clerk's craft was in its death throes -- jobs were being computerized and out-sourced to sub-contractors paying much less money. Several of us clerical union members were not too impressed with what we considered to be a lackidaisical attitude by our local union leadership. We'd report scope rule contract violations to these local representative(s) and the problem would correct itself for a few weeks, then re-appear and the cycle would start anew. In most cases the violations were unauthorized people performing clerical work that was rightfully ours to perform.

We felt like the proverbial little Dutch boy trying to plug the many leaks in the dike. We couldn't stop the inevitable fate of seeing our jobs disappear, but some of us figured we should at least go down swingin'.

Whenever we would file grievances claiming that unauthorized people were performing clerical work, the Railroad would always respond by saying that we had not furnished "probative evidence" to substantiate our claim(s).

One of the interesting things about ATSF's computer system was that it left an easily accessible record of who did what, identifying the "perpetrator" by displaying his/her initials on car records and other documents.

In July of 1985 I was working a graveyard shift at Watson Yard near LA Harbor and noticed on the Company computer that a trainmaster had been entering the "pull" and "release" times on a bunch of freight cars. He was doing work that should have been done by a clerk. His initials were shown on eleven car records showing that he had done the work. In my mind, this was the perfect undisputable "probative evidence" that would substantiate a grievance. I made the bold move of filing a grievance, and, just in case anyone might have any question(s) about what I was complaining about, photo-copies of the eleven car records, prominently displaying the trainmasters initials, were included as attachments to the grievance.

Lo and behold, it was just a few days later that I was called into an office and interviewed by a couple of managers. There generally will always be TWO of these officers at these little "preliminary hearings" so that if the Company later decides to take it to a full-blown investigation, the two Company officers can corroborate each others testimony.

A few days after that I received the formal charge letter by certified mail charging me with, among other things, such heinous crimes as (1.) deviating from my duties during my tour of duty; (2.)
using a Company photo-copying machine for what the Company interpreted as my "personal use"; (3.) using Company stationery (photo copying paper) for what the Company interpreted as my "personal use"; and (4.) walking off Company property with the photo-copied computer car records ** and several other questionable, trumped up charges.

The investigation was the usual kangaroo court. All railroad investigations are nothing more than a contractual formality that they have to go through before they can fire someone. Mine was no exception. Another useful purpose for an investigation is that it generates a transcript for the neutral arbitration board members to read as they decide whether or not the fired employee should be re-instated.

During the investigation, at no time did the Company want to investigate, in any degree of depth, as to whether or not a trainmaster had been performing clerical work. All of the focus and attention was aimed at ME and what I did. I mean, can you think of anything more horrific than an employee walking off the property with a batch of photo-copies? Call out the special agents with guns drawn! Never mind that he might have had a pretty good reason for doing so.

I've heard that, at the conclusion of most investigations, the hearing officer will ask the person under investigation if s/he felt that the investigation was held was in a "fair and impartial" manner.

Interestingly, I was never asked that at my investigation.

The hearing officer also said he would allow certain letters that would have been beneficial to my defense to be introduced into the record "as the investigation progresses." His words.

Those letters never were introduced into the record.

On September 17, 1985 I was advised that I had been found guilty of all charges and was being terminated. With various layers of appeal that needed to by exhausted under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, my case eventually wound its way, at a glacial pace, to the final supreme arbiter, the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, headquartered in Chicago. On January 17, 1989, the NRAB ruled that I was in the wrong for securing Company photo-copies for what was interpreted as "personal use", and that Santa Fe was also in the wrong for terminating me. The Board was convinced that I was only trying to police the Agreement. Finally, some sanity had made an appearance!

Santa Fe was ordered to re-instate me with full seniority and all rights unimpaired. I was hoping to get back pay, but, alas, the NRAB fell short in ruling on such an entitlement.

Let's see. It only took some three years and four months for this dispute to wind its way through all the layers of appeal. By January of 1989, I had obtained employment elsewhere and was making more money than I would have had I returned to Santa Fe. There was also a lot of job security with my new employer -- something that could not be matched had I gone back to ATSF.

I don't even know if any unionized clerks still exist at BNSF.

I think in many ways, Santa Fe did me a favor by firing me. I'm reminded of that scene in the movie UP IN THE AIR where George Clooney's character (Ryan Bingham) is giving a pink slip to J. K. Simmons' character (Bob) :

Ryan Bingham: You know why kids love athletes?
Bob: Because they screw lingerie models.
Ryan Bingham: No, that's why we love athletes. Kids love them because they follow their dreams.
Ryan Bingham: Your resume says you minored in French Culinary Arts. Most students work the frier at KFC. You bussed tables at Il Picatorre to support yourself. Then you got out of college and started working here. How much did they pay you to give up on your dreams?
Bob: Twenty seven thousand a year.
Ryan Bingham: At what point were you going to stop and go back to what made you happy?
Ryan Bingham: Anybody who ever built an empire, or changed the world, sat where you are now. And it's *because* they sat there that they were able to do it.

I did an Internet search and saw that my NRAB Award is posted online. Interestingly, it's hosted by the website of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, even though I've never been a member of that union.

http://members.bmwe.org/awards/3d/oldpdf/3-27667.pdf

The other day I ran across the transcript of my investigation in a storage box. Maybe I'll post it online if I can figure out how to do so!

** I had to do that to attach them to my grievance.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/15 13:12 by CA_Sou_MA_Agent.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's easy to remember an investigation when you're
> the "defendant", i.e., the one who has been
> charged with various rules violations and has to
> try to explain himself. I found myself called to
> a formal investigation almost thirty years ago
> (man, where does the time go?) when I was working
> as a clerk at Santa Fe. At that time the clerk's
> craft was in its death throes -- jobs were being
> computerized and out-sourced to sub-contractors
> paying much less money. Several of us clerical
> union members were not too impressed with what we
> considered to be a lackidaisical attitude by our
> local union leadership. We'd report scope rule
> contract violations to these local
> representative(s) and the problem would correct
> itself for a few weeks, then re-appear and the
> cycle would start anew. In most cases the
> violations were unauthorized people performing
> clerical work that was rightfully ours to perform.
>
>
> We felt like the proverbial little Dutch boy
> trying to plug the many leaks in the dike. We
> couldn't stop the inevitable fate of seeing our
> jobs disappear, but some of us figured we should
> at least go down swingin'.
>
> Whenever we would file grievances claiming that
> unauthorized people were performing clerical work,
> the Railroad would always respond by saying that
> we had not furnished "probative evidence" to
> substantiate our claim(s).
>
> One of the interesting things about ATSF's
> computer system was that it left an easily
> accessible record of who did what, identifying the
> "perpetrator" by displaying his/her initials on
> car records and other documents.
>
> In July of 1985 I was working a graveyard shift at
> Watson Yard near LA Harbor and noticed on the
> Company computer that a trainmaster had been
> entering the "pull" and "release" times on a bunch
> of freight cars. He was doing work that should
> have been done by a clerk. His initials were
> shown on eleven car records showing that he had
> done the work. In my mind, this was the perfect
> undisputable "probative evidence" that would
> substantiate a grievance. I made the bold move of
> filing a grievance, and, just in case anyone might
> have any question(s) about what I was complaining
> about, photo-copies of the eleven car records,
> prominently displaying the trainmasters initials,
> were included as attachments to the grievance.
>
> Lo and behold, it was just a few days later that I
> was called into an office and interviewed by a
> couple of managers. There generally will always
> be TWO of these officers at these little
> "preliminary hearings" so that if the Company
> later decides to take it to a full-blown
> investigation, the two Company officers can
> corroborate each others testimony.
>
> A few days after that I received the formal charge
> letter by certified mail charging me with, among
> other things, such heinous crimes as (1.)
> deviating from my duties during my tour of duty;
> (2.)
> using a Company photo-copying machine for what the
> Company interpreted as my "personal use"; (3.)
> using Company stationery (photo copying paper) for
> what the Company interpreted as my "personal use";
> and (4.) walking off Company property with the
> photo-copied computer car records ** and several
> other questionable, trumped up charges.
>
> The investigation was the usual kangaroo court.
> All railroad investigations are nothing more than
> a contractual formality that they have to go
> through before they can fire someone. Mine was no
> exception. Another useful purpose for an
> investigation is that it generates a transcript
> for the neutral arbitration board members to read
> as they decide whether or not the fired employee
> should be re-instated.
>
> During the investigation, at no time did the
> Company want to investigate, in any degree of
> depth, as to whether or not a trainmaster had been
> performing clerical work. All of the focus and
> attention was aimed at ME and what I did. I mean,
> can you think of anything more horrific than an
> employee walking off the property with a batch of
> photo-copies? Call out the special agents with
> guns drawn! Never mind that he might have had a
> pretty good reason for doing so.
>
> I've heard that, at the conclusion of most
> investigations, the hearing officer will ask the
> person under investigation if s/he felt that the
> investigation was held was in a "fair and
> impartial" manner.
>
> Interestingly, I was never asked that at my
> investigation.
>
> The hearing officer also said he would allow
> certain letters that would have been beneficial to
> my defense to be introduced into the record "as
> the investigation progresses." His words.
>
> Those letters never were introduced into the
> record.
>
> On September 17, 1985 I was advised that I had
> been found guilty of all charges and was being
> terminated. With various layers of appeal that
> needed to by exhausted under the provisions of the
> Railway Labor Act, my case eventually wound its
> way, at a glacial pace, to the final supreme
> arbiter, the Third Division of the National
> Railroad Adjustment Board, headquartered in
> Chicago. On January 17, 1989, the NRAB ruled that
> I was in the wrong for securing Company
> photo-copies for what was interpreted as "personal
> use", and that Santa Fe was also in the wrong for
> terminating me. The Board was convinced that I
> was only trying to police the Agreement. Finally,
> some sanity had made an appearance!
>
> Santa Fe was ordered to re-instate me with full
> seniority and all rights unimpaired. I was hoping
> to get back pay, but, alas, the NRAB fell short in
> ruling on such an entitlement.
>
> Let's see. It only took some three years and four
> months for this dispute to wind its way through
> all the layers of appeal. By January of 1989, I
> had obtained employment elsewhere and was making
> more money than I would have had I returned to
> Santa Fe. There was also a lot of job security
> with my new employer -- something that could not
> be matched had I gone back to ATSF.
>
> I don't even know if any unionized clerks still
> exist at BNSF.
>
> I think in many ways, Santa Fe did me a favor by
> firing me. I'm reminded of that scene in the
> movie UP IN THE AIR where George Clooney's
> character (Ryan Bingham) is giving a pink slip to
> J. K. Simmons' character (Bob) :
>
> Ryan Bingham: You know why kids love athletes?
> Bob: Because they screw lingerie models.
> Ryan Bingham: No, that's why we love athletes.
> Kids love them because they follow their dreams.
> Ryan Bingham: Your resume says you minored in
> French Culinary Arts. Most students work the frier
> at KFC. You bussed tables at Il Picatorre to
> support yourself. Then you got out of college and
> started working here. How much did they pay you to
> give up on your dreams?
> Bob: Twenty seven thousand a year.
> Ryan Bingham: At what point were you going to stop
> and go back to what made you happy?
> Ryan Bingham: Anybody who ever built an empire, or
> changed the world, sat where you are now. And it's
> *because* they sat there that they were able to do
> it.
>
> I did an Internet search and saw that my NRAB
> Award is posted online. Interestingly, it's
> hosted by the website of the Brotherhood of
> Maintenance of Way Employees Division of the
> International Brotherhood of Teamsters, even
> though I've never been a member of that union.
>
>
> http://members.bmwe.org/awards/3d/oldpdf/3-27667.p
> df
>
> The other day I ran across the transcript of my
> investigation in a storage box. Maybe I'll post
> it online if I can figure out how to do so!
>
> ** I had to do that to attach them to my
> grievance.



I have a feeling that somehow P.L.Meredith was one of the players in this comedy.

Chico43 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a feeling that somehow P.L.Meredith was one
> of the players in this comedy.

The infamous, tell-tale initials that appeared on the car records were "PLU", which were actually the first three letters of the guy's last name.

With that, you can probably piece together who he was.

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chico43 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have a feeling that somehow P.L.Meredith was
> one
> > of the players in this comedy.
>
> The infamous, tell-tale initials that appeared on
> the car records were "PLU", which were actually
> the first three letters of the guy's last name.
>
> With that, you can probably piece together who he
> was.

Ok, got it............I remember that upon his arrival in LA that he was having trouble with the concept of two westbound trains, by TT direction, meeting nose to nose at Mission Tower. His kid works there. Had to go to bat for him a time or two.