Form
1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
8274
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8151
2-SLSF-FO-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and
in addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 22, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Firemen & Oilers)
(
( St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Laborer Willie J. Webb was unjustly dismissed from the service
of the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company on June
7, 1978,
in
connection with front truck, Unit
937
being derailed at the East
entrance of No. 2 Stall of Lindenwood Diesel Shop on May
16, 1978.
2. That accordingly, the St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company compensate
Laborer, Willie
J.
Webb, at his pro rata rate of pay for each work day
beginning June
29, 1978,
until he is reinstated to service and in
addition to receive all benefits accruing to any other employee in active
service, including vacation rights and seniority unimpaired. Claim is
also made for Laborer Willie
Jo
T~iebb, for his actual loss of payment of
insurance on his dependents and hospital benefits for himself, and that
he be made whole for pension benefits including Railroad Retirement ~),nd
Unemployment Insurance, and in addition to the money claimed herein,
the Carrier shall pay Cdr. Webb an additional sum of
6
per annum
compounded annually on the anniversary date of said claim.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employe 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The claimant, Mr. Webb, was employed as a hostler helper-supplyman at the
carrier's Lindenwood Diesel Shop, St. Louis, Missouri.
On the date of the occurrence under consideration, he was performing as a
hostler helper. A unit of three locomotives was bccking in an easterly direction
in order to clear the switch leading into the east end of the di3sel shop, No. 1
stall. The claimant was stationed on unit
937
or the east end of the consist_
When the unit cleared the switch leading into No. 1 stall, h1^. Webb gave the
signal to stop which was properly followed. He lined the switch into No. 1 stall
Form 1 Award No. 8271E
Page 2 Docket No.
8151
2-SISF-FO-'80
and signalled a go ahead to the hostler. However, the front trucks of unit
937
were just through the switch which allowed movement into stall No. 2. When the
unit started to move into stall No. 1, these trucks derailed because they attempted
to move into stall No. 2 in accordance with the alignment of that switch. The
claimant noticed the derailment and properly signalled for a wash of the movement
which was executed.
Following contractual notices and an appropriate hearing on June 1,
1978,
the
penalty herein complained of was assessed on June
7, 1978.
The carrier's decision relies upon the General Rules Agreement between the
parties and in particular Rule B which reads in pertinent part:
"Employees who are negligent or indifferent to duty ...
will not be retained in service."
It is clear'that the switch settings were the claimant's responsibility a::1d
that the derailment was caused by the No. 2 switch. In defense the claim is M~.,de
that this oarticular'switch had given the claimant trouble in the past. The
claimant stated that on at least one occasion he had thrown switch No. 2 only -to
have it plop over for no reason and he had to throw it again. It is interesting
to note that he did not check the switch after the derailment as he left for
other duties in connection with two trains he had to supply. However, the
hostler testified that after the incident he noted that the No. 2 switch was lined
up for the No. 2 stall. In addition, the general foreman and an additional employee
check the switch and found it in good working order and lined up for No. 2 sta:11.
The preponderance of evidence indicates that the claimant was negligent in
his duty to assure that all switches were properly aligned before giving the
hostler the signal to move the consist. Accordingly, the rules were violated
and some form of correction -ras valid.
In determining the punishment, the carrier points to the claimants personal
record with the ccanpany. While it is true that such matters are not germane to
the determination of guilt or innocence in a particular charge, they may be
reviewed in determining the applicability of the penalty assessed.
The record indicates that the claimant had been discharged after a hearing on
two other occasions during the last five years. He -was returned to the service of
the company on a leniency basis on both occasions. In addition, there were other
matters of a less serious but troublesome nature in the file. It cold not be
considered an exemplary record. In accordance with the foregoing and the entire
record, this Board finds that the rules were violated and the action of the
carrier did not constitute harsh and unjust treatment.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Form 1
Page
3
Attest; Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No.
8274
Docket No. 8151
2-SLSF-FO-'80
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSM= BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By '_t,._~ 3
Tel rrie -Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of March, 1980,