Form 1 NATIONAL RAIZROU ADJUST1~T,i~,~Nr BOARD Award No. 797+
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 777
 2-SOIT-CM-' 7y


Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1. 0.
 Parties to vj. Brute: ( (Cam. en)

I):is pute· - C l;l'e'ra Of I'r':'plc1'-=a:









Fit?d' n. ,-;s

 The Second Division of the Acijulst.vcnt Board,, upon the vlnole record and all the ev3.denec, finds that:

 The car;^ier. or c:avriers and the c::aplaye or eri_r_7_ayes irwa.lved in this dispute are respects.v:.-ly c.?°r:~er and crr.~??oye witi::-in the rzeans..ng of the Ra:~7.w~a,y Labor Act as apr;~aved June ?l, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjusvaent '.-Board has jurisdiction over the d:~s~a;::te involved herein.

Clai;uant herein was clza rged with "... failure to perform your duties as car inspector :i,n that you failed to doted broken center sill ..." on a particular Car. The car in question, vrithout repair, made a round trip on a train and subsequently v°us sent to a repair point, a1.1. without incident. On the date of Claa.rna,nt t s alleged error, an APTI1 inspector found the crack i n the center si11. and by°ought it- to the attention of C1ay.T;.anr's fox°eman. A:>
a re*~ he wlas assessed a two day- disciplinary lay-off.

 Carrier stated that there was Substantial testimony at the hearing to indicate the ex-, :tence of the. f:La,~r. In vie-,r of the seriousness of the potential fax' d~r;~a.ge from such a :~"1ai;-, vlve discipline was ~~rarranted, according to Carrier. I~: .aas also argued th,at ti,7o days v~--s a most reasonable penal.i,;y under the circ-ai:vstaz.ces.
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No . 7974
 Docket No: 7 77
 2-SOU-CM-'79

 Petitioner asserts that Claimant did. indeed see the crag., but used his judqnent, as instructed by Carrier in the past, and left the oar in service. Petitioner states that the crack, according to the testimony was an old one which had been previously repaired and -ma,s covered by an agile iron welded. on the inside portion of the sill. Further it is argued that the car passed through many other inNpection paints with no exceptions being taken to the crack. Tin=ialy, the Organization points out that the ear in question was only sent fax light repairs after the crack eras reported, indicating the lack of seriousness of the flaw.

 The t!xrust of Carrier's position in thus dispute eras that ClaSsr_ant had used poor jud.~,gnent in not reporting the crack in the sill. It must be noted that Claimant was not charged with the root jud_.,---nent call, but rather -vitl-,. not harin~detects d the crack: a signii"i.cwnt distinction. The -tes timo_~y at the in;sstigatx.an maLes it ev.dent that Claimant dr.d find the crank, belt did not deems it inxpurtant eraot7 ~! to report-. The. jt?d."_:~_ent question (and a,?1 the controversy that natter entails) is not at issue here; the oi-ily question -is whether the teLtz.?rany at th.e invest-11,-'at-1-on suppo~ted Carrier's conclusion that Claimant ~.;as guilty. An examination of the transcript convinces us that Carrier did not- meet its burden: there is ::nsttfficient evidence to indicai:e that Claimant iras guilty as charged. For that reason, the Claim mast be sustained.

 A V1 A R D

 Claim sustained.

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 NATIOI~.A-L TRAIMQAD AD7USTT~2271T BOARD
 By Order of Second Division

 ..

- -;; X P. -


BY __
 ToA c:..marie Br arch - Administrative Assistant

 Dated ~t Chicago, Illinois, this 13th day of June, 1a79.