NATIONAL
RAIL20AD ADtrUSTM~T BOARD
=RD DIaISICN Docket Number S G-22161
Louis Yagoda, Referee, (Brotherhood of Railroad Signal-men
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
(Missou=ri Pacific Railroad Company
ST_4TE~'.raT G_ CLAIY: "Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen or. the Missouri Pacific
Railroad Company:
A. The i-Essouri Pacific Railroad violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, paxticularly Rule
700,
when it failed to prove charges
brought against Signal Maintainer W. C. Parker prior to and tried in an
investigation held on April
15, 1976
at Chester, :=nois as follows:
This is a formal inrestigatior. to develop the
facts and place the responsibility, if any, in
connection with the report that you ;ailed to
properly maintain the Hot ?ox and Dragging
equipment detector located at Mile Post 92
Pole 28 on the nester Subdivision during the
month of March,
1976.
B. The Brotherhood of Rail=road Sigza'm,.en requests that
Mr. Parker be paid One
Months pay, ~ih53.80,
for ti=e lost, including
any overtime earned by others
on his
assigned territory from April 20,
1976
to
?ay
2o,
1976
du-ring
-which time he gas improperly held out of
service." /Carrier file: K 225-70
OPZNICT OF BU-RD: We find not sustain-red, contention of Cla·.-at's
representatives that Claimant was not afforded
his right to be not=fled explicitly of the charges on which he was to
be tried in the notice summoning him to the investigation which
resulted in Carrier's decision to apply the subject disciplinary
dismissal. The description of the subject of hearing makes it
unmistakably clear that Claimant is called to answer to the "repcrt
that you failed to properly maintain the riot Box and Dragging equipment
detector" at a specifically identified period. There could and shc1..1d
h_gve been no doubt Lin Claimant's mind that the occasion was for the
purpose of deve?oming the facts and placing responsibility, if any,
(as the notice explicitly states) in connection with the svecifical
ay
identified accusation against him.
Award Number 22169 Page 2
Docket :lumber SG-22161
It was credibly established at tae investigation that on
March 26,
1976
Carrier technicians found a hot box detector assigned
to Claimant for maintenance surveillance and operative efficiency to
have been seriously defective to an extent making it totally inoperative.
The evidence further establishes that these conditions were within both
the power and the duty of Claimant to have avoided or corrected.
Claimant admitted that h= had prior knowledge of the
deficiencies found in certain of its serious aspects. He testified
that he had knowledge of tae damaged shutter on the detector for
15
days
prior to March 26,
1976.
He explained that on detecting this, he would
lubricate the shutter "and it would work for a time". It appears clear
that such known repeated failures called for a replacement of the
shutter (Claimant admitted that a spare shutter was available). In
spite of the fact that he stated he came into contact with the detector
two or three times a week to change graph paper and had removed a tape
from it only two days before YArch 26th, Claimant admitted that the
last time he checked the piece of equipment was three weeks prior to
March 26th. Yet Claimant acknowledged that he could have detected, by
reading the graphs, that the detector was not functioning properly.
Tae record also discloses admission by Clai=ant that he did
not comply with tae requirements of Rule
537
that inspection shall be
made as soon as practicable and any troubles detected corrected, after
severe storms.
These lapses in duty and in responsibilities are of serious
negligence and created grave potentials of hazard to property,
equipment, personnel, passengers and freight.
We conclude that Carrier acted on valid and just grounds in
imposing the subject thirty
(30)
days discipline.
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 within the meaning of the railway
Labor Act, as approved June 21,
1934;
Award Vhmiber 2^2169 Page
3
Docket .dumber SG-22161
That this Di-=sion of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the discute involved herein.; and
That the Agreement :ms not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
M=eNAD RA.::LRCAD AJT,iUSTNNIT BoaRD
,~ By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:.
Y =,·s",_9!i
3aecuti'l=_ Secretary
Dated all Chicaoc, =-Inois. ''.his
31
st day o°
jui-
1
C
C3.