NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Award Number 19666

THIRD DIVISION Docket Number TD-19731

Alfred H. Brent, Referee

(American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Soo Line Railroad Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

(a) The Soo Linc Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier" violated the Agreement in effect between the parties, Rule 23 thereof in particular, by its action in assessing suspension (not served) from the service of the Carrier for a period of fifteen (15) days upon Train Dispatcher A. F. Burke, Jr. following formal hearing on February 2, 1971 and assessment of such discipline was placed on his personal record file. The record of said formal hearing fails to support Carrier's charges of violation of instructions, thus imposition and/or record of discipline was arbitrary and unwarranted. Further, Carrier failed to comply with appeal procedures specified in the Agreement thereby denying or decision as provided in the Agreement.

(b) Carrier shall now be required to clear Claimant Burke's employment record of the charges whi
OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier contends that the Claimant, a train dispatcher,
failed to follow the proper procedure for reporting a
suspicious indication of a possible hot journal box on Train I)87 and thus
contributed to the derailment of two cars at the east switch of the Glennwood
Yards on January 24, 1971. After a hearing on the property, the Carrier sus
pended the Claimant for fifteen days (not served). The Organization contends
that the fifteen day suspension imposed by the Carrier was not supported by the
record on the property and that the Carrier failed to comply with the appeal
procedures set forth in the agreement.

The Carrier admits (record page 107) that Rule 23 (c) was violated. The Organization had requested a conference with the general superintendent within the fifteen days specified in the rule, but no conference arrangement was made by the Carrier.

This Board has held in innumerable Awards that a Carrier cannot be excused for failure to schedule an appeal conference within the time limits
set for appeals in the rules.See Awards #15006, 16030, and 16094.

Awwrd Ntumber 19666 page 2

Docket Lusbcr TD-19731

FLT7)T_^:': fhc Third DiXi_cion of the Adjunntm=:.t Bolerd, upon the whole record u_^.d U1 t'.:·: evidence, fir.:'>s and holds:

That the p-roes waived oral hemring;

°oqt the t':rr!.cr ~~:~. fic 1`nnloye:: im-olved in this disre:te ere
respcctiv^7.y Corrier c-3 t:.r_^lc;;co within U_,e i==nrin; of the Itailvay Labor Act,
CF: woprf--.:d June 21, ' 1iji;

in^.t this JIii-ision of i::c Adjust, :,:rt Doard has jurisdiction aver the
diahutc iixc?::cd hc;-Sn; ~nd

That the Agreement was violated.

A 1d A, ^ D

The Claim is sustained.

i;i:i'1f:;.',1, R`.SI:.',C1':P : ?'~,7U:;_._ ':T ^'U;;

By C'c^.i cX :.:iird Bili,ilon

~::.'.C::LiYO : .vC::: ;:iry

r^tcd ::t: Ci.ic-.'ro, Lll1=:.~, t'_s 23rd 2t.;; o~ March 1973.

i