Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9026
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9151
2-D&TS L-CM-' 82




Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(


Dispute: Claim of Employes:

That the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company violated the controlling Agreement when it unjustly assessed Carmen James Bellville and Cary Adams five (5) days actual suspensions on April 3, 1980, as a result of investigation held March 20, 1980, at Toledo, Ohio.








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 Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.



Claimants, Messrs. J. Bellville, Inspector Write-up, and G. Adams, Carman were employed by the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company when the incident in question occurred. On March 5, 1980 they received notice to appear at formal investigation on March 13, 1980 with respect tothe following charge by Carrier:


Form 1 Page 2

Award No. 9026
Docket No. 9151
2-D&TSI-CM-'82

A third carman, Mr. N. Poole, also party to the original Carrier charge, was subsequently acquitted of all involvement in the incident in question. After request for hearing postponement by Organization on March 9, 1980 hearing was held on March 20, 1980. As a result of the hearing, Messrs. Bellville and Adams were notified on April 3, 1980 that each had been found guilty as charged and were being assessed a five (5) day suspension. After all appeals through appropriate steps had been made by Organization on property this case is now before the Second Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

Tine Board, in the instant case, fails to appreciate fully Organization's distinction concerning whether car No. MCPX 23034 was "temporarily repaired" or "temporarily put back together" by Claimants on February 23, 1980 in view of Carrier charge that Claimants "... were negligent in the repairs made to the coupler...". The critical issue, in the mind of the Board, which must go beyond semantic distinctions is whether this car was in safe operating condition after February 23, 1980 for yard movement and if not who was to blame. Hearing evidence indicates that the probable cause of the March 2, 1980 accident was that the cross key retainer lock had not been properly installed when the car coupler had been re-assembled on February 23, 1980. Claimant Adams allegedly reinstalled the retainer when re-assembly took place and Claimant Bellville as Write-up Man had primary responsibility for car inspection after this procedure was completed. At no time did Claimant Bellville state after February 23, 1980 to superiors nor to anyone else, according to investigation transcript, that car No. MCPX 23034 was unsafe for yard movement.

The role of the Board in its appellate function in this and other discipline cases is not to substitute its judgment for that of Carrier, but to determine if Carrier has met the test of substantial evidence. The Board's determination in the present case is that Carrier has done so and the Board will not disturb Carrier's position on this matter.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

By




Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of April, 1982.

NATIONAL RAIIROAD ADtTUSTMENT BOARD

By Order o£ Second Division