Form I
Dispute: Claim of Employes:

fr`rICw'1LRAZL,RO1D A l;Ti;Sir'Ct;T F;nAitD

SECOND DIVISION






Parties to Disp tp_ { (Carmen)

 Award No. 6713
 Docket 'No. 6593
 2-SOJ-CH-' 74
( Southern Railway Company



Findinas:
'Flee Second Division of the Adjustment Board, open tire whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 . The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant, who has been in Carrier's employ in excess of twenty-eight years, was char red with and following an investigation found to rave "rot properly inspecting, on October 24, 1972, the cross key retainer on North B end of rte 613442, to determine the condition of all parts ther·~of including the cotter key". Carrier imposed upon Claimant a disciplinary suspension from work for three weeks.

 It is well established that this Board, concerned for the survival of the railroad system in tae united States; the safe movement of passengers and freight; avoidance of injury to employees and the public; protection of railroad ec;uip^tent horn damage or destruction: has affrrdeci ranacerisent extensive leeway in dealing wlth employee: who malfunction or oisfunction in the performance aC their assigned drrtics (Award 6419). As %..,ell and succinctly stated by Carrier in its subaission, this Board "r.ri11 not substitute its jr,d'_;irent for '=::.5t of the Carrier in discipline cases if the evidence of recorc: elm_rs t12-:t the carrier complied witl=. t2:L procccir.iral requirements of t:e effective a:gree;:ieirt Pnd that the disciplinary action was not arbitrary, capricious or an unreasonah3.e abuse of' managerial discretion." This was properly culled from Awards 1575, 2996, 3031, 3430, 3374, 5020, 6346, 6419 of this Division.
 Fonm 1 Award No. 6713
 Page 2 Doci:et No. 6593
 2-S0U-CIM-' 74

 To guide the Parties in their handling of disciplinary matters on the property, the various Divisions of this Board have outlined the criteria which will be applied in reviewing whether the record discloses that the above quoted standards were satisfied. Briefly, the burden of proof concerning the ch::rC;e against the claimant is borno by the Carrier. (Awards 1325, 1769, 1969, 4046, 643.9, 6487 and 6500 of this Division); conflicting testimony at oho investigation will not be considered to be of major significance providing there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings below (awards 29;6, 4931 and 5723);

"the evidence must have sufficient sustance to support a reasonable inference or fact as di;s'v:ilibi3.lsii:C7 Ix'C~:7 c'1 possibility o.- an unsupportcd probability" (First Division Award 12952); mere suspicion is not sufficient to prove the offense charged (Awards 1325, 1969, 4(369 and 64i9).

 Its floe recurci ueure us ii: is e:airwntiy clear ;hat Carrier's deci-dim'S, Ciii:~.1:~i ~:t:lX:_:ii Pi.'iiica3"tiy, ir TiUi t;:<i:iiiSLS% ci'lp, l3>i?(~i `t'i'iL-' CStiu:~te and evaluation by a General Foreman as to the cause and respons;ibilityy f-or the mishap which resulted in the charge and discipline imposed upon Claimant. This witness inspected the equipment which h«d dropped its coupler duo to lack of securing the crass key, at thhe site of the occurrence which wms approximately seventy miles north of the yard in Which it uncontrovortvdly was inspected by Clairunt. Hs insisted that tire cotter pin which would have held the crows key in place had to be ors the sid:~ of the freigglht Car which, according to markings thereon and admitted by Claimant, was inspected by Claimant and approved for movement at the Meridian, Mississippi Yard. His conclusions were based upon "Standard Procedure" for installation of crow keys, but he ado fitted that such wore not followed in all instances. There was testimony by both Carrier and Organization witnesses that cross keys were inserted in an opposite direction so that cotter pins securing it might be on the at:er 3-;'e of th.t czi.r and i f tbats was ts'e c~;~ rew"It 4~vc- to MP-613442 on the night of October 24, 1972, the defective condition,, if it existed at the Meridian Yard, would not have been observed by Claimant, because that side of the car had been checked by a foreman and student mechanic at Meridian that night.

 For soT,-,e inexplicable reason, Carrier did not call upon the fore-n.--in who inspected the right side of the car to testify concerning the position of the cross key when lite inspected that side of t-iP-513442. 'I"nis would have been the bast evidence of the conditions wimp the car was insp.cted at Meridian. Instead the doterniration was made by tile fester "?echanic on the basis of suppositions made by a General Foreman as a result of his study of the equipment at the point where the coupler fell off, dbscon;::-ctfzi the car and those behind it from the moving train. As stated above,
 l vr%1 I Award 1.1o. 671,
 D;iga g Docket No. 6593

this was seventy r~Ules north of the feridian Yard and the train had, according to Potitior.er acv not rebutted by Carrzer, passed through two of Carrier's repair points, without any defect being observeii prior to the d isengager:ent.

 It oust be held that Carrier's action ryas founded on assumptions, possibilities and suspicions which do not satisfy the above cited criteria far ekcu:~iave ~~.y~4::.~^n~.~ .to support tae burden of proof which would entitle it to invoke its managerial discretion.

    Claim sustained.


                            NATIflrML RAILROAD ADJUS714"ENT BOARD

                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By
      ~ . _ ~_.L c : ~ - t r _ i ,, .c · ~~ ~ C:__ ,( _- ~. ._

% R¢secmarie f3raschV - Administrative Assistant
 1

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of June, 1g74.