Form 1 YVATIOIvIAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 778
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7712
 2-3sJ&:i~-CM-' 7°



Parties to Dispute: ( ._ (Carmen)

Di s .itat e: . C laixu ox ,,nm7_ove s












F ins? ir:~;.^

The carrier ox' carriers and tile r":ipa(jye or E?p..~_GtTeS inl'i?lZ'^C1 in 'G11.`?_ dispute are respectively car:.'a_c r and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1931; .

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

    I'art9.es to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.


Claimant was charged with causing damage to coa::I,na,'; ec?uipment, as a

 result of which he eras sus.penc'._e>d. for 45 days, The bands ef c,arx'ie:.rs chaX'gc v_s that a v'x'cck Truck driven by Claimant was damaged by 2. Cc:.2dca'ya Cap because Claimant had parked the truck too close to five E;raok.

 The Organization's defense is that Carrier submitted no substantive
 evidence that the truck was acVa:Lly.foul of the touch before the uccident;
 that _~M1u. .,~ `. Cartier discussed the v:1_a:i?i: with
 prior to t ho :i.i_cs:i.~ .t-LC·~ I r .
 another err.k%la,wea and indicated the degree of discipline that wovil be
 :LI:1?yCSE'd; and th:.;i; ~;i_°.:i_r::'u.il-i. n.'i.d not %'ECc".i~'r F?, 't'a:W Li_v,..u'itl; 1.n t11:.tt 'GY:.
 Iioa.r:i.ng Officer acted. in m:ti:fi:il,;.o ,ro-les i_ . iirrT ~,. :p~al:~:inai'Tr i:v,esti^;<:~;cv::;~
 pI'C:ferr'! Y:g tkii: C)-'.a'";: :> j conducting the 1'<'!VCs'i:7.g5?'i::iotl, rElldec:i.i1F; the
 decision, and denyiry~; the claim upon ap-

                        I

F oxm 1 Page 2

 A.

 Q.

 A.

 Q.

 A-~rard No. 7788
 Docket No. 771
 2-f J&I;-C Ni-' '(9

 With respect to the Oxban:i.zation's cla-.1:n of insufficient evidence that the t.rcLck was too clasp to the tr°ack, "GIze txanscxipt of the heax:W g head August 1 7 , 19`l6 includes tire :f'ol.laz~ria.z? o;Tcra,no~e bev;treen Mr. Peed (Hearing Officer) and I:.r. Cardenas (Cla-.'utsatTU):

 Did. you ch<:r:Y; to see of this txtzcl> zms in the clear before leavi.n~; for th a dexailnent on 31 1xlunp?

 At the tine ti~at I, before I l.ei't, T looked fro^i the bach- cf the pTatfo::_n c.,nd I seen I was clear. I didn't ~:;rcT/no a.ttcnt:i_on to the f~°ont end. T assured that the front end -vas clews also.

 fL1CY'1 you lao'-Led from the 1:~lwtfonn at tRe rear of tile t~o-cK.-----

 Yes, sir.

 -.-but did not 7..ao'k at the front end of the truck, and assu.:aed than you. were Iba -the clear.

 Yes, Sir.

 D:i.d yo;z rna,l:e any provisv.ons to aloe;: 33 liu.~:p so cans could not
 be sw~ached in, ..

 A.

 Mr. Cardenas, how long have' you been the track dra.vex of Track 142?

 About three ax four years.

    Q. Three or faux years?

    A. Yes, Sir.

    Q, Do you often check only or).' " end of your truck to see if it's

        clear of the track be'"o.r F. abwndonin it?

    A. No, Sir.

    Q. Would you e%-plain ~cuhy you didn't check the front end of your

        truck on this particular day.

    A, I don't know- why I didn't check it. I don't knoi;."


The :Fallovrin~; da.scus;;ian at tile _nvest:i.t~av:i..an also bears on the issue
 . of the qua,ntu~r of evidence. The Hea,twin; Of-fic;:x cluestianed ;7i;;ness isr.Z~.-.._rrl?p
 General Car I areman:
 Foam 1 Award No. 7783
 Page 3 Docket No. 7712
 2-hJ&E-CY-79

    'rQ,. Mr. Yna.pp, are you. fauailiar with the incident under investigation?


    A. Yes s Sir.


    Q. Wou.'!_d you describe your knm,,,lc-d,,7e concerning this incident.


    A. ----T arrived at the crest end of Hun p 33 at apnyon:iY_.a'tely

    10:2 10:25 em. and discovered tint Truck 1),12 vas fcy~:.:Ihed on Track


        33.

        ITLmp grad. had, been stx~uc1; c!n ii,lle xi.Flz'r side n=r IL-SP 75084, gondola, causing, a ~t:i.r:.ated cT.._:.c~ro of irc,1GO to Truck 142

        ....

        I roea_'ured the distance f'.roW. the tail to t,`-,,e tine of

        Truck 1}-f 2 which :.'% -,.7,,.s 25 .... T. to the switch on 33

        TTump at the zrest end and 1'ourlc. that the t-oa,c;li w~as not bl.oel=~e d

        by a oo-_ch block ox had no blue flag on the track.


    Q. Rr_ Knapp, did you state Truck _1.1+2 was lc'!'l: lU`~ of 33 li',uT.p?


    A_ yes, Sir*


    Q,. What do you mean by foul?


    A. The tLwck eras rot 1.~,~:ked in clear of and too ncar for any

    car to be Y>a.cl>ed or switched into thua txacl::.


        Q,. 1'011 testified the 1.°'! ght I:''.':1t1't wheel ?7a,:; 25 inches fro.ni this rail. W'ha,t would be a sa._°e distance -to prevent this tx.ucJ-, being stinack by carp, movirgy past?


        A. P,Tohzna,l 'gray to find out if clearance, if you have clearance on an adjacent track, :i., stand a;ain:>'u the Vacl, reaching out with your opposite a.x":n, i,rhir.h is appxaxirt_wtely three poor.


        Q. Axe you stat:W " this damage ir~d.s caused by Txuck 1.12 being left too close to the rail on 33 WD?


    A. Yes, six."


Neither Claa.Tr.ant nor his representative questioned T`r', Knapp regawdirr-,
 these st':.tamcnts. C1a:n-ant's repxese:zta't:i,,~e, in f'~:.et, although contend-JI-rig
 that the sw:'L~tch cr°c~;r bore s;:zne 2e,-ponsi%~:~1i ty for ~:.he accident, since the;;
 had a clear W _c--T.r of thn area, stated at the hearing that "if '1'.rwnspo?~ta.t7.on
 is not going to ta1Le cha ire of their then they cannot ex-pcet
 employees of the Can vel?a,rt;t:)cnt -to be ~>ezza' :i,.ed for their c k) rnc~r ^.bhto;.~y
 negligence." (umexlinin£; uupplicd) ..

 At another point- dluinm 'the investigation, the Organization's wepresentat1.Lre Co?Tiliented;
 Form 1 Page 4

 Awa fd ivo. 7788
 Docket No. 7712
 2-Ec~ ~E, --CM-' 7g

 "... I believe there :i_=: some dual re.,l)on-sib_li'ty here, or I'll s:~,·.r ;hat, I'll a:,llege 'L'oa;L there :W sc:ne duc.l ,Y'esp0'1:.1b11xtv here. I'm not r<..yin; that, uh, Mo. Cardenas (ClaiY:lai?t) has not dt7tle a,ll;~'uC11Zl'~i:0I7~; ~~i%~ I know Viat the : zri'tcl: crew -,hould have z.ool:;.cd do;*m -L1hc tY'aCh, too."

 Cla.irra.rrt a_122ged at the that:

 "I have been told_, rot by Dmmornient but by all personnel,
 ,. that uno t.~??az:ishLnietit. ;~, alY'ea,(-z;j to be dealt with, ttm.'t 1 z'ul.l be
 > ,r
 given a :'~'0 day e17271Cn;;:LC7n, a r r

 i':C:l_VhG'x' C ~.F'.:~.'i:`'.:r?'~: nor his Y'f.C_lfE.':ieatv:.'';.:! V'c called any w-itnesses to sv?bsvaint;W::i;e this asst~rtjon.

 .Ir_ Oy_~.~ r, w'nGat ~.: rF~ ~ Claimant d:i_d 11(it n,: ~~:;,A~.:i,_,~ .c~z h~.> also has C~i ·~.,.. t.d 'i:=v'i, occe'ive a
 fair hearing, x'GfE'r'_1':Lng to tho 7:1'J_7i'.7_')lE_' nolr·r (f the f-It.c3,kl1'.,,_~ ~ Off-.*k^ar cited
 above. 'V.!': have C,_,._'E'('`:?LT ~y'' 1.°E`, wC~T,i:''C~. the 1~'_'S:T~.i'Cj ~^ called t0 out aL t'Ilt:1_an 4'; e
 have C`t.xc'.i;a..u;; ,`'a"tri7.ed 'G1i1:. HanvcYpt of the investigation. We find no
 evidence a_22 the :':.-Cord bG:LU't: u" that Cl%',';"!::.il't was denied due process by
 the statements, actions, or C:,::_:;u.17Ci: Uf thE: ifCax'1.i1g
                                    0~1.:L:i.CC~.


`!'he preponderance of thG evidence ?'::t; O?1 S that Carrier ha:. S't:.S Ua7_t:d
 the .charge against lWi.,~ -r ~,U as -;, Sf;T the discipline :.%.T
 charge Claimant `r u to ~;,?'L; C'.:!.~-Sse.d. It
 iS not this Board's PIJriC'GiOt1 to disturb Carrier's find-in ~;rC unll_.-~P, some
 tl..,t:b1.t;i"aY'y action can be established. 1'',O such arbitrary or capricious
 action 10.5 been rhoyn. We must, therefore, deny the claim.

 A 4'J A R D

 Claim denied.

                    2p

KATTO1_'T1tV1, EftITARCU Alm
    By Order of Second Division


Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustmux1c, Board

    lQaWIlca,.,'t'1e t51'aoCh - Aia?".1..Ilas'Ln':'_`'4:1.'tl'C'. AS,`.'7S'''v. ..............

                                ',:Cl'~i


Dated at Chicago, :i-17_ir!o:is, this 4th day of January, lg7g.