NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTIENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-22008
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
( Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
(The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Co=nittee of the Brotherhood,
(GL-8338),
that:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties, when
on the date of September 22, 1975, Mr. F. E. Keen, lst trick AgentOperator at Rockwood, Pennsylvania
30
days'
actual suspension from service, and
2. Carrier shall, as a result of such action, compensate
Mr. Keen, eight (8) hourr's pay commencing September 22, 1975, and
continuing for all subsequent dates until restored to his position.
C?Ii:Ivi7 OF BOARD: Claimant was charged with responsibility
concerning a failure to deliver a train order.
Subsequent to investigation, he was assessed a thirty
(30)
day'
suspension from service.
The evidence shows that a crew was cleared by a train
dispatcher with three
(3)
orders and no messages. The dispatcher
and the Claimant (an operator) are required to state and repeat to
each other all of the train order numbers in effect to be delivered to
the train; however, both the train dispatcher and the Claimant overlooked one train order (a slow or
way forces working on the track on which the train operated) and, thus,
it was not delivered to the train.
The train was required to make an emergency stop in the slow
order area.
The train dispatcher was assessed a ten (10) day suspension
for his responsibility in the matter.
We do not find that Claimant's rights were prejudiced by the
manner in
which
the investigation was conducted; and we do find that
substantive evidence has been submitted to demonstrate Claimant's
culpability.
C
.~
Award Number 22090 - Page 2
Docket Number CL-22008
It is argued that Carrier's operating rules place equal
responsibility on both the Train Dispatcher and the Operator and thus
the more stringent diciplinary action against Claimant is inequitable.
Nonetheless, it appears that the Claimant was guilty of a number of
improper actions. He admits that he failed to "hand on" the order.
There were interlineations on the Clearance Form "A"; and he
(admittedly) only partially coyplied with the operating rules. One
must presume that the purpose of proper completion of the Clearance
Form is to assure that this type of dangerous instance does not occur.
FINDINGS: ;.he 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 a7.ployes 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 the agreement was not violated. ts.-,`~--: - -`=~:,,
I
AWARDS .~,, \`~>
v li ~ i ~ vi i ., ~J
1
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD. aDJuS=T BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of :gay 1978.
I