"When Operator Love was instructed to 'Put him to the West Shore' Rule 317-B restricted him (Love) from admitting a train to a block occupied by an opposing train and rule 221-C restricted him from restoring the 'Stop' signal to proceed until Order No. 205 had been delivered. Therefore, Claimant Howell had every right to rely upon the operating rules and Operator Love who had been delegated this responsibility by the operating rules and Train Order No. 205.
"Whether or not Claimant Howell momentarily overlooked eastward extra 1066-3321 deserves no consideration by your Honorable Board because he had previously protected the movement in accordance with the rules and that protection had not been lifted.
"and then quotes from page 5 of Carrier's Exhibit 3 where Claimant Howell answered 'yes sir' to the question, 'Did you violate Rule 807?'
"Regardless of Mr. Howell's answer to the question, which Petitioner is sure he did not understand when giving such answer, let's examine the rule and see just where or what part of this rule he violated. For convenience we will quote the rule again:
"In the instant case, the rules require that the movements of eastward trains between Oakfield and SS-33 be by train order under manual block rules. Rule 807 required that the train orders be issued by the train dispatcher who is to record the movement of all trains and important incidents affecting the movement. Rule 317 (B) required the signalmen (Operators) to manually block the trains. Claimant Howell issued the necessary train orders when he issued Train Order No. 205 and he recorded the movement when the Operator at Oakfield reported extra 1066-3321 east leaving Oakfield at 6:40 P.M. Thus, he completely complied with the provisions of Rule 807 and, regardless of any admission he may have made in the investigation, the Carrier has not and cannot show where Claimant Howell violated Rule 807 or any other operating Rule. There is nothing in Rule 807 relating to overlooking a train after an order has been issued. It is true that a train dispatcher may overlook a train when issuing a train order and thereby set up a disastrous condition, but that is not true in the instant case. Rule 807 was not violated. (Emphasis theirs.)
"The one and only cause of this accident was the failure of Telephoner-Leverman Love to comply with the rules protecting the movement which he readily admits * * *."
not violate Rule 807; that when he told Telephoner-Leverman Love to "put him (train BF-1) to the West Shore" he was just "informing Telegrapher Love that the approaching train would be operated via the 'West Shore"'; and that he was thus not issuing an order within the meaning of Rule 807. It was further argued on behalf of the Organization that in view of the requirements of the Carrier's rules governing the effectiveness of train orders once issued, there can be no doubt that train order No. 205, as issued by the Claimant Train Dispatcher, was and remained in effect at the time the westward train here involved passed Signal Station S-33 without having received such order. Claimant had not superseded Train Order 205, Organization asserted.
In analyzing Claimant's telephoned instructions to Telephoner-Leverman Love to "put him to the West Shore" we have, then, Organization's assertion as to what he meant.
From the transcription of the investigation we have Claimant answering these questions:
By his own admission, as quoted from the transcript, Claimant Howell admitted that the intent of his conversation with Telephoner-Leverman Love was that he (Love) should "put him (Train BF-1) to the West Shore" and do it "immediately." Love did just that, and the ingredients of a head-on collision were thus joined.
We also have this from the transcript, the question being directed to Claimant Howell:
Claimant, by his own admission at the investigation, as reflected by the above quotations from the transcript, concedes his own guilt in violating Rule 807, upon which Carrier predicated its disciplinary action in disqualifying Claimant as a dispatcher. 8423-4 11$