Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 1069'
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10594
 2-B&O-CM-'85
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Jonathan Klein when award was rendered.
 (Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
 (and Canada
 Parties to Dispute:
 (The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company violated the terms and/or provisions of the controlling Agreement, when on the date of October 7, 1982 they subjected Claimant, Cayman John Pawlowski, Curtis Bay, Baltimore, Maryland, to an unjust, unfair and partial hearing allegedly as a result of a violation of Blue Signal Circular CDT-82, Section 5.01 on the date of September 18, 1982 at Curtis Bay, thusly, further subjecting Claimant to discipline of five (5J calendar days actual suspension commencing with the date of November 5, 1982 through November 9, 1982.
2. That Carrier violated Rule 32 of the controlling Agreement with regard to the instant case.
3. That accordingly, Carrier be ordered to compensate Claimant for all time lost as a result of such arbitrary discipline, including any and.all overtime to which entitled during such suspension, etc., that he be made whole as though he were never subjected to such suspension, and that his record be cleared accordingly.
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.


Claimant, John Pawlowski, was employed by the Carrier at its Curtis Bay facility in Baltimore, Maryland. Claimant received a five day actual suspension having been found guilty of a violation of Blue Signal Circular CDT-82, Section 5.01 after a formal investigation on October 7, 1982. The applicable section of the Circular is set forth in companion case, Award No. 10690.
 Form 1 Award No. 10692
 Page 2 Docket No. 10594
 2-B&O-CM-'85
On September 18, 1982, Claimant was assigned the work of oiling journal boxes and coupling hoses on cars situated upon Track No. 19. The Claimant testified at his investigation that he witnessed locks and flags placed on switches at the west end of Track No. 19, although he did not apply them himself. Claimant went to lunch with his co-employee, Robert P. Jones, and left the remaining work of oiling cars on Track No. 19 to be finished by another employee, Vincent Romano. The Claimant testified as to the absence of a flag on the west end of Track No. 19 as follows:








As to the absence of a lock on the west end of Track No. 19, Claimant Pawlowski stated:





Claimant's case has been carefully reviewed by this Board. The witnesses, facts and issues presented in the instant appeal are substantially identical to those set forth in Awards Nos. 10690 and 10691. An analysis of the record including the testimony of Claimant and the Carrier's supervisors compel this Board to conclude that Carrier met its burden of proof of Claimant's failure to comply with the well-known dictates of the Blue Signal Circular. The rationale contained in our Award No. 10690 for denial of the Claim is equally applicable to this case, and a repetition of our reasoning contained in that opinion would serve no useful purpose.
 Form 1 Award No. 10692
 Page 3 Docket No. 10599'
 2-B&O-CM-'85





                          By Order of Second Division


Attest: ,
        Nancy ~^ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 8th day of January 1986.