(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee ( (Formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company ( (Involving employees on lines formerly operated by the Wabash Railroad Company)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Com
 munication Division, BRAG, on Norfolk & Western Railway
 Company (Wabash), T-C 5863, that:

 1. Claim of the General Committee that the Carrier violated the terms of the Telegraphers' Agreement, when on December 7, 1971, it dismissed T, H, Grider without just reason or cause; and











I


OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was employed by the Carrier on April 23, 1969. On
 November 17, 1971 Claimant was working as a telegrapher
 leverman at Forrest, Illinois. Included in his responsibilities was the read
 ing out of tapes from four "hot box" Detector Recorders located in the tele
 grapher's office. On the date in question, as Train DC-4 passed the first
 detector it caused a tape indication (SMhi over 2MM) to appear in Claimant's
 office that a certain car might have developed a "hot box", and he immediately
 stopped the train for a visual inspection. The dispatcher, who is respon
 sible for the control of train movements and is Claimant's superior, instructed
 Claimant to clear the train after the train cre·! was unable to find the source
 of the hot reading.

 After 28 miles and the next detector location, the reading was approximately the same and about 31 miles further along the line, the detector reading was still the same (SMM aver 2MM) and again Claimant allowed the train to continue. At the fourth detector point, after another 36 miles, a much higher reading was noted (25MM over 2MM) and Claimant stopped the train. The car in question was set out, the train proceeded and subsequently the car required repairs.

 An investigation was held on December 1, 1971 to determine Claimant's responsibility in not stopping the train as described above. On December 7, 1971 he was dismissed for failure to follow instructions concerning action to be taken when abnormal readings are registered on hot box detector recorders.

 The Organization contends that the Carrier failed to sustain its burden of proof and hence was not justified in discharging Claimant. Specifically, Petitioner states that there were no rules or instructions in evidence relating to the duty of telegraphers in connection with hot box detectors. Further it is argued that Claimant used common sense in not stopping the train at the 2nd and 3rd detectors since the reading was the same as at the first location where nothing dangerous had been found.

 Our study of the investigation indicates that the special instructions relating to the hot box detectors were quoted in detail at the hearing, that Claimant was familiar with these instructions, and further that he had used his own judgment rather than follow the instructions. There is ample evidence, therefore, to support the Carrier's charge against Claimant.

 The Carrier is under an extremely heavy burden of responsibility for safe operations; its multiple obligations to the public as well as to its own employees are well known. We said in Award 14066:

        "Tie are aware of the high degree of care under which a Carrier is required to operate concerning matters of safety. In order to exercise this duty, it must insist that its employees faithfully and carefully execute the responsibilities which devolve upon them. It cannot leave anything to chance or permit the slightest neglect."

                    Award Number 19560 Page 3

                    Docket Plumber TE-19807


41e have repeatedly held that employees who violate Carrier's safety rules are subject to dismissal (Awards 14865, 10880, 11609 among many others). In the light of the entire record, we will not upset the punishment decided upon by the Carrier and will deny the claim.

        F11\'DIhGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied,


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order. of Third Division


ATTEST: 49.
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 10th day of January 1973.

 . . . '