Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 SECOND DIVISION
 Award No. 14001
 Docket No. 13883
 09-2-NRAB-00002-080035

tonal Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

SPATE1VtEN~' 4F CLAIM:










FINDINGS:

 The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
 Form 1 Award No, 14001
 Page 2 Docket No. 13883
 09-2-NRAB-00002-080035

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 Divisim of the Adjustment Board has juris~diu~ioa over the dispute iavahd Win.




The Oaimant was employed by the Carrier for approximately 13 years and an
 June 29, 2007 was assigned as an Electricoan at the f-11.1 De pailat fiKft at
 Barstow, California. On this date, the Claimant's work cement was to perform an
 MOk sees-omoal i~ection on Electro Motive ' ' (EMD) Locomotive 9002.
 BNSV e~ioyees, such as the , occasionally perform wat on EMIR
 locomotives on a contract basis. An apprentice Electrician, A. Britt, was assisting. the
 Claimant is this WIG The ENID kOomotive was subject to the inspection
 reqaits of that company and the Claimant was required to complete an EMD
 imp P r An worksheet hidicating the work that lord beet performed on Locomotive
 9002

Part of the work to be performed on Locomotive 9002 was an inspection of the traction motors. Item 153, paragraph A, on the inspection report states the following as one of the tasks to be performed during a traction motor inspection: "Replace brushes (Mandatory):' The Claimant and the apprentice both indicated by their signatures on the inspection report that the inspection of the traction motors, including the replacement of the brushes, had been completed. The next day, June 30, 2007, K. Frazier, an EMD representative, inspected Locomotive 9002 to check work progress. Frazier noted that the traction motor inspection cover appeared not to have been disturbed and also noted that the inspection kit assigned to that locomotive, which contained the new traction motor brushes, had not been opened




Form 1 Award No. 14001

 Page 3 Docket No. 13883
 09-2-NRAB-00002-080035

Following the Investigation, the Claimant was issued a ten day record suspension with a one year probationary period. The issue before the Board is why the Carrier proved with substantial evil of a credible nature that the Clsmnmt was guilty of the charged o0nse and, if soy was the discipline assessed warranted for such offense.



Ciai®ant's own testimony, clearly established that the mandatory requirement that
 the tiacdoa motor brushes on EMD LAcomotive 9002 be replaced, had not been
 performed and that both the Chdmwt and the apprentice signed the inspection report
 ind sting that the work had been completed. EMD Supervisor Frazier testified that
 his of the locomotive on the day following the date of the Cwt's
 insp, revealed that the traction moor covers on the engine appeared not to have
 been disturbed and that it was not possible to change the traction motor brushes (a
 mandatory requirement) without removing the covers. Frazier further testified that
 the inspection kit for the unit, which contained the replacement traction motor
 brushes, had not been opened Frazier also entered into the record the inspection
 report for Locomotive 9002 for June 26, 2007, which was signed by the Claimant
 incorrectly and indicated that the traction motor brushes had been changed. The
 Claimant admitted at the Investigation that she had read the inspection form, that she
 had read that it was mandatory to change the traction motor brushes as part of the
 inspection and that she had signed the inspection report indicating that the brushes
 had been changed, despite the fact that she knew that such task had not been done by
 the apprentice based on her specific instructions to the apprentice.

The Claimant, while admitting these facts, defended her actions by stating that Lead Electrician J. Schwartz had advised her that it was not necessary to change the traction motor brushes if three wear lines were visible. Based on Schwartz' statement, she so instructed the apprentice and the traction motor brushes were not

Form 1 Award No. 14001
 Page 4 Docket No. 13883
 09-2-NRAB-00002-080035

 changed because they fell within this tolerance. The Board notes that while Schwartz
 was a Leadman, he was not assigned as the Claimant's Leadman and was working at
 another location in the facility. Schwartz was at the Claimant's work location for the
 sole purpose of ping her op for a break and not in any type of work y.
 Wwe fchwartz teed that he had given the Claimant this incorrect infornoa
 relative to the traction motor brushes, hoe stated that this was based on hfs knowledge
 of inspection procedures on BNSF owned kooomodves and that he was not famiai
 with the inspection procedures for EMD owned locomntivea In fact, Schwartz
 testified that he had never seen the EMD hrspection form and was, therefore, not
 aware of the mandatory requirement that the tradion motor brushes had to be
 aged as part of the MOfpection. The Board finds that were Schwartz sboald
 not have gives the advice wffloot pomp knowing the E1VID woe procedures,
 this is not salt to relieve the Claimant from her primary respomibHity to hniffr e
 that the brasbm had been rrpiaoed. The form is dear and onambigoooson
 this reqn meat. When, the Claimant saw that Schwartz' advice was oouftary to the
 farm, she Amd have tmmefabdy soagI t oat her supervisor if she was tumure how to
 proceed as opposed to doming the form inificating that the work had been done when
 she law that such information was false- Furthermore, the record hWMcates that the

no attempt to notify sups visloa of this fact ontd the next day whem shewas questioned conoernu~g this nwder.


Relative to the dine assessed in this case, the Board does not find the imposition of a ten day record suspension with a one year probationary period to be excessive in light of the nature of the Claimant's proven violation of the Carrier's Rules. Accordingly, the Board finds no reason to disturb the discipline assessed.





Form 1 Award No. 14001
 Page 5 Docket No. 13883
 09-2-NRAB-00002-080035

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the (mss) not be made.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Second Division


                        Dated at Chicag% IHno* this 9th day of Apes 2009.