The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
fan March 2, 2005, Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty as charged and was dismissed.
It is the position of the Organization that Carrier erred in dismissing the Claimant and that a review of the transcript indicates that Claimant was deprived off a fair and impartial Investigation. Additionally, it argues the Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof and if discipline was appropriate, which it denies, it was excessive.
Carrier argues there is no validity to the Organization's procedural arguments or that Claimant was denied a fair and impartial Hearing. It submits that Claimant is guilty as charged. Claimant's failure to properly perform his duties placed the safety of himself and his co-workers in jeopardy. Coupled with his Form I Award No. 13916
short length of service and prior discipline record, its assessment of dismissal cannot be considered arbitrary, excessive, or an abuse of managerial discretion.
The Board has reviewed the transcript and record of evidence and finds no merit to the Organization's procedural arguments or that Claimant was deprived a fair and impartial Hearing. At the conclusion of the Hearing the Claimant and Organization stated that with the exception of the Notice of Charges not being specific, they believed the Investigation had been conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
Turning to the merits it is clear that on January 13, 2005, Claimant was working on the second shift at Carrier's Diesel Shop at Shreveport, LA. At approximately 6:45 PAL, Claimant and another employee (HOI) were instructed to move a four-unit locomotive consist from Track 50 to Track 70 North in the roundhouse for inspection. A blue flag and derail was applied at the point on Track 70 where it nears the roundhouse for protection of employees working in that area.
Hill was operating the locomotive consist and Claimant rode the platform on the head end of the leading locomotive. The de ' lue flag was on the opposite side of the track from Hill's position at the locomotive's controls. As the locomotives proceeded towards the derail/blue flag, the Diesel Shop Foreman observed the movement from his nearby office window. The Foreman noticed that the engines were not slowing down as they approached the derail. He waived his arms at the window and succeeded in getting the Claimant's attention at which time he pointed towards the derail/blue flag. Claimant then saw the derail, and began giving instructions to Hill to stop the locomotives. The distance to the derail was too short and by the time the locomotives stopped, two wheels had been derailed.
It is clear by the testimony of the Diesel Shop Foreman and Mr. Hill who operated the locomotives that Claimant was negligent in the conduct of his duties, placing his safety and others in jeopardy. He did not give the operator of the engines an adequate amount of time and space for stopping clear of the derail/blue
Claimant testified he instructed Electrician Hill with the command "that'll do, Stop" at one engine length preceding the derail (which according to him was Form 1 Award No. 13916
sufficient space to stop based upon the speed of the locomotive) and it was only after the locomotives failed to slow down he again gave the command to stop three times is not persuasive. The testimony of the Carrier's witnesses was more credible than that of the Claimant's self-serving testimony.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.