(a) Burlington Northern Inc., hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier" violated the Agreement in effect between the parties, Article 24 thereof in particular, by its action in assessing discipline in the form of thir from service upon Train Dispatchers R. N. Specht and C. J. Stokes, following formal investigation held on June 1-2-3, 1972. The record of the investigation fails to establish responsibility on the part of Claimants as charged, thus Carrier's action can only be viewed as arbitrary, capricious and in abuse of managerial discretion.


          (b) Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimants for wage loss sustained, and to clear < of the charges which purportedly provided the basis for assessment of discipline.


          OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute concerns asserted responsibility of

          two Train Dispatchers regarding a fatal head-on

          collision between two of Carrier's freight trains.


        The Organization alleges a number of procedural deficiencies, and raises defenses to the merits of t procedural error, and insists that it has demonstrated that (while actions of others may very well have been improper) the actions of Claimants contributed to the accident; and that factor is a sufficient basis for imposition of, disc may, in order to justify the suspensions, there must be a showing of reasonable causation between the actions and the accident.


          The record demonstrates that restricting Train Order No. 263 was properly and timely issued concerning the two trains. However, Carrier states that neither of the Claimants arranged for an operator to report for duty at the location "where a hazardous condition existed", and that the discipline was imposed for a disregard of safety in releasing the operator from duty and failing to provide "special precautions."


                                    i


i
                Award Number 20829 Page 2

                Docket Number TD-20635


The record in this dispute is voluminous. We have studied it at length in an effort to ascertain if Carrier has presented substantive evidence to justify its we have not been unmindful of the fact that the evidence shows that one of the trains proceeded against the "stop" signal without obtaining Train Order 263. We have als the "hours of service" law which had a bearing on the fact that the operator at Yates City was absent at the pertinent time, as well as evidence of practices and procedures which had a bearing on this type of a situation.

 Carrier has stressed that Claimants should have taken "special precautions" under the circumstances here in issue. In situations such as this, especially when a tragic, fatal accident is under consideration; there is a very human tend steps which might have avoided the incident. At the same time, there may be a tendency to excuse certain oversights based upon continued utilization of procedures which were questionable at the outset.

 In any event, we have searched all documents of record concerning Carrier's contention that Clai precautions" under the applicable regulations. We are unable to find, with a sufficient degree of certainty, what special precautions the Dispatchers should reasonably have taken, under all of the circumstances, and within their area of responsibility - as a prospective judgment, unaided by misleading, after the fact, speculation. We will sustain the claim.

 Accordingly, it is unnecessary to pass upon the procedural objections.

        FINDINGS: 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 the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 193+;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; an
        That the Agreement was violated.

                  Award Number 20829 Page 3

                  Docket Number TD-20635

                  A W A R D


        Claim sustained.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of September 1975.