(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (George P. Baker, Richard C. Bond, and Jervis Langdon, ( Jr., Trustees of the Property of ( Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor



(a) The Penn Central Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the effective Schedule Agreement between the former New York Central Railroad, and Train Dispatchers Represented by the American Train Dispatchers Association, Article 9 thereof in particular, by action in assessing thirty (30) days' actual suspension against Claimant Train Dispatcher C. P. McNamara following formal investigation conducted April 5, 1972:

 (b) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now be required to remove said discipline from Claimant McNamara's personal record and compensate him for all time l


(a) The Penn Central. Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the effective Schedule Agreement between the former New York Central Railroad, and Train Dispatchers Represented by the American Train Dispatchers Association, Article 9 thereof in particular, by its disciplinary action of disqualifying Claimant C. P. McNamara in all capacities as Train Dispatcher following formal hearing conducted April 25, 1972.

 (b) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now be required to remove said discipline from Claimant McNamara's personal record, restore him to his train dispatcher position, with all rights unimpaired and compensate him for all time los
OPINION OF BOARD: This docket includes two disputes which were separately
 bandied on the property. Our views, in disposing of the
 clsams, require discussion of each claim.



The American Train Dispatchers Association claims that The Penn Central Transportation Company violated Article 9 of the effective Agreement in assessing thirty day formal. investigation conducted April 5, 1972, and seeks removal of said discipline from Claimant's personal record and compensation for all time lost.

 The Carrier's Director-Labor Relations in letter of June 19, 1972 to the Acting General Chairman denied the Organization's appeal in System Docket No. GPK-4 concerning the instant claim, stating in part:

The transcript of investigation shows the following questions and answers, Claimant answering:






































We have carefully considered the Claimant's statements included in the transcript of investigation, and the arguments of the Organization concerning the responsibility of the Carrier to furnish train dispatchers proper tools, including a properly delineated train sheet for the recording of train movements. Although the contentions of the Organization are persuasive, we are nevertheless cannot say that the Carrier's interpretation of this item as entered is unreasonable or arbitrary. I against Claimant; and we find none, we are unwilling to substitute our judgment for that of the resp
Since the basis for the Carrier's denial of Claimant's appeal on the property was basically the factor just discussed, and we support the Carrier's conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with the conflicting testimony involving the Condu 8887 pertaining to work and time limits or passing stop signal (CP-70).



The American Train Dispatchers Association claims that the Penn Central.Transportation Company violated Article 9 of the effective Agreement by its disciplinary act in all capacities as train dispatcher following formal hearing conducted April 25, 1972. The Organization's claim is that "Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now b Claimant McNamara's personal record, and restore him to his train dispatcher position, with all righ handled on the property and was improperly included in the submission.

 The evidence is absolutely clear that Claimant duplicated three train order numbers, two of which were running orders, in violation of Rule 203, reading: "Train orders must be numbered consecutively each day, beginning at midnight. Claimant record includes copies of the duplications.

 The Carrier, in denying Claimant's appeal, in letter of June 17, 1972, states in part:

The duplication of train order numbers has the potentiality of causing death, injuries, loss of property and incalculable damage. That a disaster does not occur, as in the instant case, does not lessen the gravity of the duplication. The violation subjects the violator in a proper case to discipline that may result in his discharge or disqualification from service. See Award No. 13648.

 The question here presented is: not whether the Carrier has the right to disqualify Claimant from service in all capacities as train dispatcher. The Carrier does have this right in view of the grave violation committed. We are concerned, as stated by the Carrier in its letter of June 17, with the question of whether the particular facts and circumstances in this unique case concerning Mr. McNamara may operate to mitigate the severity of the Carrier's decision of disqualification.

 We note the following: (1) Claimant has had 25 years of service with the Company; (2) Claimant has worked in the capacity of train dispatcher since Feb. 4, 1953; (3) Except for a three day deferred discipline in 1971 and Claim #1 in this docket, Claimant has a clean record; (4) Claimant is 49 years of age; and (5) Claimant openly admits to his violation and recognizes its seriousness.


It is a truism that years of service by an employe do not give an employe a license to violate established rules. It is also true, as a general observation, that years of service by an employee often evidence an employe who is faithful and loyal to his company, who is well-disciplined and takes his work seriously, who is knowledgeable and experienced in his work, who identifies with the company, is dependable, and is the hard-core or bed-rock that makes the company go. Of course, this general observation does not apply in all cases, and this-is why each disciplinary case must be judged on its own particular merits and why years of service, standing alone, do not give an employe a license to violate established rules.

 This Board is of the opinion, in the particular circumstances of this particular case, that mitigating circumstances here warrant removing the disqualification of Claimant as train dispatcher.



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

 In Claim #1: that the Agreement was not violated; in Claim ,#2, that the Agreement was violated.

Claim #1 is denied. Claim #2 is sustained, but without pay for time lost.

                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July, 1974.

 1