Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIE11r BOARD Award No, 8194
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8l20
 2-BNI-FO-' 79



Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)

Dispute: Claim of Ennloyes:








Findin's

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

 The carrier or care iers and the em_p lo7e or employes involved in this dispute are respect4xely carrier and en:p'?o;vre 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 was a hostler helper er^ployed in the Carriers s shop at Chica-a., Illinois. On February 25, 1978 the Clai-ant i,4-as assisting, a hostler in the movement of certain switch en .";i nes. ?wring the movement of these engines several units collided with another unit causing damage to drambars.

 The Claimant was charged with giving Lrproper signals to the hostler and/or failing to gs_ve proper signals in a, t:L.:ely nanner. After an investigation, the C l_ainiant was censured for violation of Carre °'s rile:: or safety by i'ai 1 ins; to exercise care in coupling engines and in failing to stop less than 50 feet to ad~zst drclauars.

 It is the position of tie Carrier tI ~zt the ClwiznWnt was properly and clearly apprised of the subject matter of the investigation and tl_at the investis-;ative record proved that the Cl~:.i_~, ant, f-ile~

Si, lw ,.2: C~
 imposition of discipline was proper and not arbitrary.
 Form 1 Award No. 8194

 Page 2 Docket i~To. 8120
 2-BNI-FO-' 79

 It is the contention of the Organization that the Carrier's action was unjust and arbitrary when it disciplined the Claimant for the collision that occurred. The Organization contends that the hustler involved in the incident eras an employee with only one day hostlin~; experience prior to the date of the incident and that the evidence at the investigation revealed that the Carr- er no longer trains hostlers as intensively as i t had in the past.

 Although the notice setting the J. noes t_i..,r;s.tJ.on as well as tile notice to reschedule the investigation did not specify particular safety rules which the Carrier alleged were violated by the CIF,---.ant, both noHces were sufficiently specific regarding the incident which was being investigated. It is foand that the notice conplied with Rule 28(c) of the agreement regarding investio;ations.

 The evidence of record, regarding the collision, indicNtes th^t the Claimant gave the hostler a back-un sign which i,:as ackne,rledge°d and t:~e hostler bean to back his un_t. The record also supnerts a fincLng that the Claii::ant Co:':.U1icated an eas;T s:! Fn to the host ier sc:^e~i:~'e sip : se- rl;~ent to the Clai:nant's s,epping off the foot-board. AlthoizZh the C3a -.'L::an-L contends that he co=n. anicat:d a stop sign to the hostler, at or about 30 feet from the point of collision, the record does not sunnort a f indinJ that this stop sign was prose:.°hy cc:Li,:unicat1~dq Either the stop a~=cn w-a.s given from a point where the roe tier could not pi c_.-, it up (vie~v- it) or the stop sign was given at a `U-:1x-.,e 'vlhen the unit could not have been stopped in any event to avoid the collision.

 The evidence does not support a finding that the short term a:.perierce of the hostler was the cause of the accident. Even if there was some rierit to the clad m that the hostler's short tern e.-lperience was a ccntr-ibri.irg factor to the collision, such a contention does not mitigate the blazTe which the Cla:i.mant had for failing to properly cc.cr~znicate the stop signal to the hostler.

 This Board finds that the Carrier's assessment of discipline, tiie entry of censure on the record of the Ciai:ant for Failing to Z-1.ve a proper stop signal, was justified.




                        By Order of Second Division


Attest; Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

        t;csseri~arie ~>re~;;c.~<.uiir`as ewe <.. si'~an~r.


Dated at C14cago, Illinois, this 28th day of T?overher, 1979.