Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10287
 SECOND DIVISION Locket No. 10133
 2-N&W-MA-' 85
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Eckehard Muessig when award was rendered.
 ( International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( The Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier improperly suspended Machinist B. L. Henington from
 service of the Norfolk and Western Railway Company for a period of ten
 (10) days beginning March 7, 1981 and ending on the date of March 16,
 1981.
 2. That accordingly, The Norfolk and Western Railway Company be ordered to
 compensate Machinist B. L. Henington in the amount of eight (8) hours
 at the pro rata rate for each day of his work assignment March 7, 1981
 through March 16, 1981 inclusive.
 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 employes 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.


The incident leading to this claim occurred on December 16, 1980. At that time, the Claimant and another Journeyman Machinist were performing a semi-annual inspection on a locomotive. Part of this inspection entailed timing its engine. To perform this function, the engine overspeed governor had to be nullified with a block or jack. The Machinist working with the Claimant placed such a device an the engine. It ensued, after the Claimant returned from lunch, that he and the other Machinist started the engine before removing the blocking device. Since the governor was nullified, the engine went into overspeed, resulting in extensive damage to it. The Carrier charged both Machinists with equal responsibility for the incident and, following an investigation, assessed each with a ten-day suspension.
The organization raises a due process contention in addition to an assertion that the Claimant should be absolved of all culpability, since the other Machinist had placed the block on the governor and, thus, the Claimant should not be the responsible party. It asserts that he should not be expected to "double check" the work of his fellow employe.
 Form 1 Award No. 10287
 Page 2 Docket No. 10133 low
 2-N&W MA-'85
 For its part, the Carrier essentially found that both Machinists had an
 equal responsibility in ascertaining that the diesel engine was in proper condition
 to start it and, therefore, the penalty assessed should reflect this finding of
 equal guilt.
 The Board finds, with respect to the due process concerns, that the process
 used by the Carrier did not violate the contract.
 Concerning the substantive issues herein, the Organization's arguments are
 not without merit, particularly since it was not the Claimant who placed the
 block under the governor, and the Carrier acnowledged, during the investigation,
 that the Machinist who placed the block "would be responsible for removing it".
 Accordingly, while the Carrier's rationale leading to a finding of equal guilt
 based on the nature of the error and the position that the Claimant was a fully
 qualified Machinist (who knew that the block had to be removed before starting
 the engine) is not unreasonable, there is a notable degree of difference with
 respect to the role of the two Machinists, as acknowledged by the Carrier during
 the investigation. Therefore, while there is evidence in the record to support
 the charge, under the circumstances shown herein, the penalty assessed the
 Claimant was excessive. We find that a five-day suspension is more commensurate
 with the error on the part of the Claimant.





                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: ons
 Nancy / Jar - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1985.