(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company

(a) The Norfolk & Western Railway Company (NYC&STL) (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier Agreement .between the parties, Articles 8(a), 8(b) thereof in particular, by its arbitrary and capr Claimant Train Dispatcher G. E. Semmes thirty (30) days' actual suspension plus permanent disqualification as Train Dispatcher following formal hearing held on November 10, 1973;

 (b) Because of said violation, the Carrier shall now be required to reinstate Claimant G. E. Semones position with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired, including group hospital, medical and clear his personal record of the charges involved in the forma. hearing of November 10, 1973 and compensate him for net wage lose suffered in connection therewith plus interest at the annual rate of six percent (6%) beginning with Carrier's scheduled pay date when said compensation was due him for time lost as Train Dispatcher.

 OPINION Of HOARD: Claimant was charged with responsibility for per
 mitting a train to go against the current pf traf
 fic, without affording proper protection under Rule 152. Subsequent
 to investigation, he was suspended for thirty (30) days, and was dis
 qualified as a train dispatcher.

 The record shows that when the train was passing Cascade, Claimant lined the switch in "reverse" position. However, the signal would not line, properly. Claim did not correct the..malfunction. He then notified the Chief Dispatcher of -the difficulty. Claimant's attention was not drawn back to the Traffic Control Panel until a bell sounded and an illuminated light showed that the train had passed the westward signal.


Award Number 21301
 Docket Number TD-21065

 Carrier asserts that Claimant was experiencing signal difficulties and that Rule 152 required th he make positive notification to the crew so as to avoid placing them into a trap.

 It maybe that certain responsibilities in the incident are properly levied against the crew members; but that does not alter Claimant's responsibility. Certain sight determinations are to be avoided. At the same time, however, it is approprate to consider the prospective actions which were reasonably required, given all of the facts and circumstances.

 Our review of the transcript of investigations demonstrates a certain degree of confusion, on Claimant's part, as to the actual events on the day in question, as well as same rather vague indications of his responsibilities. Hut freely concedes that he was having switching difficulties, to the point that he attempted manual correction - to no avail - and he so advised two fellow employees. It would seem reasonable, at that time, for Claimant to have taken further act a potential collision was a reasonably foreseeable (although avoided in this case) event. Instead, Claimant allowed his attention to be diverted to other matters.

 The Hoard feels that the record contains a substantive showing, including Claimant's own testimony, to warrant the discipline imposed.

 FINDINf;St The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole
 record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 Page 2

 That the parties waived oral hearing;

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

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has ' n
 over the dispute involved herein; and _4 [:11i~

 That the Agreement was not violated.

 Claim denied.

 ATTEST:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 12th

 03 76

VV
 0
 3ER - P
 'J
 NOV 3 0 1976

 SMR
 NATIONAL RAILRG"AD ADJUS APBOARI
 By Order of Third Division

 day of November 1976.