Opinion ID: 170920
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Investigative Hearing

Text: After Burlington Northern notified Mr. Hysten that an investigative hearing would be held, it was rescheduled twice before proceeding on the morning of Monday, June 14, 1999. Mr. Hysten did not attend apparently due to ingestion of a physician-prescribed muscle relaxant which caused him to forget about the hearing. Mr. Johnson conducted the investigative hearing despite Mr. Hysten's absence. On Tuesday, June 15, 1999, Mr. Hysten called Mr. Johnson, and, in a voice message, requested that the hearing be rescheduled. On June 16, 1999, Mr. Johnson indicated that Burlington Northern would not reschedule the hearing. During this time, Mr. Hysten continued to work at his regular job. On July 12, 1999, Mr. Johnson gave Mr. Hysten a letter that stated, in relevant part: This is to advise you that as a result of Formal Investigation concerning your alleged on duty injury, March 1999, while assigned as Carman at the Topeka System Maintenance Terminal, held on June 14, 1999 you are hereby dismissed from service effective immediately for violation of Rules S-28.2.5 Reporting, Paragraphs A and C, Rule S-28.2.7 Furnishing Information, and S-28.13 Reporting and Complying with Instructions of the Mechanical/P & M Safety Rules Policies, January 1999. App. at 1569. At trial, Mr. Johnson testified that the factual predicate for these violations fell within Part III, the Offenses Warranting Dismissal section, of Burlington Northern's Disciplinary Policy. [4] In particular, Mr. Johnson testified that Mr. Hysten's behavior constituted either [g]ross dishonesty in communicating with officials of the company about any job related subject or acting with intent to defraud the carrier of monies or property not due, to include falsification or misrepresentation of an on-duty injury. App. at 1871. Both types of behavior are listed as terminable offenses.