Form 1
Parties to Dispute:
Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7932
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 78+8
 2-NRPC-Ew-'79

 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee George E, harney when award was rendered.

 ( System Federation No. 1, Railway Employes'
 ( Department, A, F. of L. -- C. I. 0.
 ( (Electrical workers)

 ( National Railroad Passenger Corporation

 1. That under the current agreement, Electrician Jeremiah Jones, was


2, That, accordingly, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation




Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the ezrrploye or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Rail-may Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

Claimant was dismissed from service on April 1, 1977 follo-ving a fox.nal investigation held March 18, 1Q77.

 By letter dated March 14, 1977, Carrier notified Claimant he was to appear at a formal investigation scheduled for March 16, 1977. In this same correspondence, Carrier apprised Claimant of the charge against him, which is reporduced in full as follows:

 "CHARGE: Your responsibility in connection with your failure to comply with -National Railroad Passenger Corporation Rules of Conduct, Rule Y, F, I-I, and K in part which reads, 'Employees must ...attend to their dutie:·, during the hairs prescribed.,.' and Amtrak's Tv'techan:i.Cal Department Safety Rules, Rule jl,-'10,1 E, when at approximately 1::L5 a.m-, you were assigned to place Train y,'21's diner and sleeper on standby power, and you allowed a charging, line to foul Track -j;'6 without arranging
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award Docket

 7932
 7848

 2-NRFC-R,z-' 79

 "for any protection, and charging line subsequently was damaged at approximately 2 a.m. by Train #57. You were then instructed to r:anove the damaged charging line and replace it with another which eras not done while assigned as Electrician, 21th St. Yards, Chicago, Il, March 11, 1977."

 As Claimant received the notification dated March 11+, 1977 on March 17., 1977, the investigation was resched:aled for March 18, 1977 upon request by the Organization.

s third shift tour of dut- on

 circumstances and events. During Claimant'

 March L1., 1977 at approximately 1:15 A.M., CJ_a,inant received a verbal request from his supervisor to try to get two cars on charge if he could. This request referred to putting Train 21's diner and sleeper cars on standby power. Claimant had at the beginning of his shift been assigned to work Train 21, which was situated on track 7, Claimant was also apprised ay his supervisor at the tire of the request that Train 57 would be coming ire on track 6,

 Apparently, because of a limited number of charging lines on track 7, Claimant used a line from track 6 to plug into the dicier. In so doing, Claimant ran the line across track 6, thereby fovlling track 6, Instead of flagging the track with a blue signal light to protect that portion of the track which was fouled, Claimant, on his way to reparking his automobile at the request of security guards, verbally informed the Yardmaster of the charging line lying across track 6. On his return from reparking his automobile, Claimant's supervisor met him, and apprised Claimant of other work needed to be performed iirnrediatelyo Both Claimant and his supervisor proceeded to the Coach Yard to check the lights in three baggage cars.

 After this task eras performed, Claimant proceeded back to Train 21 to find Yardmaster there -vrith a radio and was informed by the Yardmaster that the charging line on track 6 had been run over by Train 57. Claimant then disconnected the line from the power to allow Train 57 to proceed on. At approximately 4:00 AM, following luncheon break, Claimant was directed by

 his supervisor to put the diner hack on standby power and to pick and wrap up the damaged charging line and get it oat of the way,

 The Board notes in reviewing the record., that the Carrier's and Organization's respective positions relative to the aforementioned surrounding circumstances and events are as vastly different as night and day. The Carrier asserts that Claimant did not perform his assigned duties during third shift on March 11, 1977 while the organization contends that he did. The Carrier states that Claimant was directed to put the diner and sleeper cars on standby power, while the Organization maintains that said directive was not a directive at all, but rather a conditional request, based on whether Clainant could manage putting the cars on charge in addition to performing his other already assigned duties. The Carrier maintains

 the
 Fom 1 Award No. 7832
 Page 3 Docket No. 78+8
 2-NFtPC-Ew-' 79

 Claimant violated safety rule 1031 E when ho put a charging line across track 6 without blue signal protection, while the Organization asserts that the Blue Flag Regulations have not been uniformly and consistently applied; that a past practice has developed which allows a fouled track to go unprotected without complaint or redress from supervision until there is an accident. The Carrier contends Claimant was instructed, after the charging line had been run over, to put the diner back on standby power and to remove the damaged charging line and accuses Claimant of not performing either of these tasks at any time during the r.eYrainder of his tour oz' duty, while the Organization counters, by asserting the diner was put bank on standby power and that at least a portion of the damaged line was picked up, maintaining the remaining portion was lying underneath Train 57 and therefore not accessible.

 Ordinarily the Board would assume the well established posture that it is not in a position to reconcile differences in testimony, primarily because the Board lacks the opportunity to adjudge first hand, the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses. However, in the instant case, the Board notes the record is so substantially replete with controverted testimony and reflects the parties' own respective positions to be so internally inconsistent as to cause this Board to question the substantialness of the evidence. It is not at all clear to this Board that the request to put the diner and sleeper cars on standby power va,s, in fact, a directive, constituting an order to Claimant. As the Carrier stated in its own rebuttal subYnission, "... Carrier does not deny that the Foreman's instructions did allow for some latitude and flexibility in the performance of the assignznent ...." Thus, based on this statement by Carrier, and especially when considered in conjunction with testimony given by Claimant's supervisor, that aside from doing the one particular duty, referring to putting the diner car on standby power, Claina.nt eras performing his assigned tasks, the Board must conclude that Claimant was performing and did, in fact, perform his assigned duties during the third shift on the morning of March ll, 1977.

 As to Claimant's having violated Rule 1031 E regarding Blue Flag Regulations, the Board notes this charge to be well substantiated from the record. However, the Board is not fully convinced said rule has been applied and enforced by Carrier with reasonable uniformity for a,11 employees at the location in question. In Second Division Award 6196, Referee Quinn stated; "A Carrier's disciplinary decision is unreasonable., arbitrary., capricious or discriminatory when the Carrier, (a?nong other things), does not apply and enforce the rules with reasonable uniformity for all employees ...." (Parenthesis added).

 It is therefore the determination of this Board, based on the foregoing analysis, that the assessed discipline of. discharge be set aside and that Claimant b e reinstated without back wages or other monetary or non-monetary benefits.
 Form 1 Award No. 7932
 Page 4 Docket No. 78+8
 2-TZFifC-EW-' 79







        Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the findings.


                          NATIONAL RAIhRQ;iD ADJUSTI=111T BOARD

                          By Order of Second Division


Attest; Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 ~-~to emarie Brasch - Acbn:inistrative Assistant

 Dated t Chicago., Illinois, this 16th day of May, 1979.