(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Norfolk and Western Railway Company (Lake Region)

(1) The suspension of fifteen (15) days imposed upon section Foreman Sixto Torres was capricious, arbitrary, without just and sufficient cause and on the basis o
(2) Section Foreman Sixto Torres shall now be allowed the benefits prescribed in Agreement Rule 22(e).

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a Section Foreman, was notified to report
 to an investigation concerning two derailments, and
 an assertion that he had furnished false information concerning track
 conditions.

 Subseauent to the investigation, the Claimant was assessed a fifteen (15) day actual suspension.

 On December 9, 1974, Claimant observed what he considered to be a defective condition. He made a request for a "slow order" and advised the Roadmaster. The Roadmaster approved the replacing of a stock rail - but not the switch point. On the next day, Claimant and his gang installed the new rail and released the track for s rvice. However, certain problems were experienced thereafter, and arrier concludes that Claimant was directly responsiblfor derailments.

base of the stock rail was not properly seated in the plates.

 We do not find that the record supports a conclusion that the Claimant furnished false information. Further,lwe are not able to find that the record shows a degree of negligence so as to warrant a loss of active service and pay for fifteen (15) days.
                        Docket Number MW-21720


The record contains a significant amount of speculation as to the actual cause:for the derailments. Ne do find that there was some degree of responsibility on the Claimarit's part, but we find that a reprimand would have been the a (15) day suspension was excessive. We approve only a reprimand.-7

        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 Mmployes 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 disciplinary action in excess of a reprimand was excessive.

                    A W A R D


        Claim sustained to the. extent stated in the Opinion, above.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                        By Order of Third Division


ATTEST
          Executive Secre


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of October 1977.