Foam 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOA10 Award '7 10,2
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
"7
~.~:?°
2 -BNI -EW-' 7"'(°
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendereu.
( System Federation No. 7, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical Workers)
( Burlington Northern Inc.
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That in violation of the current working agreement, Mr. L. A. Paz.,
Bridge Tender, was unjustly suspended from the service of the
Burlington Northern Inc. from February 2$,
1975
to March
14, 19'75
inclusive.
2. That, accordingly, the Burlington Northern Inc. be ordered to make:
whole Mr. Paz and that he be compensated for all wage loss and granted
all rights, benefits and privileges to which he is entitled under
all applicable agreements, rules, or laws.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
a71 the evidence, finds that.
The carrier or carriers and the employe ox employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21,
193+.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Panties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant is a Bridge Tender who received an entry of censure and a 15day suspension for his actions in connection with a train derailment.
Specifically, he was charged with violation of Rule
606
of the Consolidated
Code of Operating Rules "by failing to examine the route to be used and
knowing
it
was safe for movement before giving a proceed signal".
Rule
606
reads as follows:
"When a train or engine has stopped for a signal
displaying a Stop indication at a manually controlled
interlocking and no conflicting movement is evident, a
member of the crew must immediately communicate with the
control operator. If unable to clear the signal,
Foxm 1 Award t~ia.,
Page 2 Docket No. 710.
2-BNI-EW-'77
"authority to proceed will be given in the following
manner: (a) When a proceed signal given with a yellow flag
or a yellow light is received. Before giving such signal,
employee authorizing the movement must examine the route
to be used and know it is safe for the movement."
Emphasis added/
The claimant did not get a clear signal on his indicator control board
prior to the arrival of the train at his interlocking system. It can be
assumed, therefore, that the Carrier could expect a careful investigation of
the "route to be used" prior to the giving of a proceed signal.
The investigative hearing conducted into the claimant's actions was free
of procedural defect. Testimony elicited from the claimant convinced the
Carrier that the claimant had not thoroughly inspected the frog point, the
mispositioning of which was the apparent cause of the subsequent train
derailment.
The fact that the equipment involved was old and had been found faulty
in the past is hardly a defense against careful track route examination.
Nothing in the Carrier's actions is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, and
this. Board has no purpose ox intent in substituting its judgment in regard
to the disciplinary action imposed.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
R semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of June, 1977.