NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number TD-22326
American Train Dispatchers Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
ichicago and North Western Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association
that:
(a) The Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
(hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier"), violated the Agreement in
effect between the parties, Rule 24(x) thereof in particular, by its
action in assessing Claimant E. E. Cigler discipline in the form of
fifteen (15) days actual suspension as a result of investigation held
on October 8,
1976.
(b) Carrier shall now rescind the discipline assessed, clear
Claimant's employment record of the charges which provided the basis for
said action, and to compensate Claimant for wage loss suffered due to
Carrier's action.
OPINION OF BOARD: There is no disagreement concerning the fact that
while employed as train dispatcher at Green Bay,
Wisconsin, Claimant, on September 23 and 24, 1976 issued Train Orders
No. 140 and No. 145 respectively, fixing a meet between Train No. 183,
operating from Butler to Green Bay, and Train No. 182, operating from
Green Bay to Butler, at Calumet Yard, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, a point
between Tavil Tower and Sheboygan. The trackage involved is single
track territory between Tavil Tower and Wisconsin Tower at Butler.
On both of the days in question, upon the arrival of Train
No. 183 at Calumet Yard, Manitowoc, Claimant issued Train Order Nose
148 and 154 respectively, giving Train No. 183 from Butler the right
of track over Train No. 182 from Calumet Yard to Tavil Tower at Green
Bay, This was in conformity with the instructions of the controlling
Train Orders.
However, on neither date did Claimant annul the first order
establishing the meet at Calumet Yard when issuing the second order
that "No. 183 has right over No. 182, Calument Yard to Tavil."
Accordingly, on both evenings, Train 183 proceeded from Butler past
Manitowoc to Tavil while Train 182 waited at Tavil.
Award Number 22497 Page 2
Docket Number TD-22326
Because of having allowed these two inconsistent Train
Orders to stand, Claimant was tried on the following charges:
"Your responsibility in connection with
issuing conflicting train orders to
trains #183 and #182 on September 23,
1976, while you were employed as Shoreline
District Train Dispatcher, on Job #006,
from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, September 23,
1976. "
and
"your responsibility in connection with
issuing conflicting train orders to
trains #183 and #182 on September 24,
1976, while you were employed as Shoreline
District Train Dispatcher, on Job #006, from
4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, September 24,
1976."
The 15-days actual suspension being here appealed resulted
from said trial.
At the hearing, Claimant admitted that he had failed to issue
the annulling order required for annulling Train Orders No. 140 and
No. 145 respectively, for the evenings of September 23 and 24, 1976,
so that Train No. 183 could properly move from Calumet Yard to Tavil
with priority over Train 182, stating that: "at the time it came to
clear the train, I was occupied with other duties ...when it came
time to clear #183 at Calumet Yard. And, I didn't give #183 enough
to go from Calumet Yard to Tavil. I should have given them another
order, the operator at Tavil and #183 annulling the meet at Calumet
Yard."
Carrier correctly points out that as the situation stood,
after Train No. 183 arrived at Calumet Yard, it had two train orders,
one requiring it to meet Train 182 at Calumet, the other allowing it
to move from Calumet to Green Bay. Carrier regards such act of
omission by dispatcher as causing "conflicting" train orders to be
in effect in violation of Rule 301,a, which states:
"Train dispatchers must guard against dangerous
conditions in train-movements and must not issue
improper or unsafe combinations in train orders."
Award Number 22497 Page
3
Docket Number TD-22326
Defense of Claimant and his Organization is that the admitted
omission of the act of annulment by dispatcher cannot be accurately
described as his having issued "conflicting train orders", the charge
on which he was tried and for which disciplined. They point, moreover,
to the testimony of Chief Train Dispatcher R. D. Mohr, acknowledged by
both parties to be an expert witness on the rules and mechanics of
train orders, in that Mr. Mohr stated that both orders could have been
complied with, with no hazard of accident'involved.
Finally, Organization points out that the crews involved,
tried at the same time for the same episodes, were penalized only by
15 days deferred suspensions although at the times involved they made
their movements without train authority to do so.
The Board concludes that Carrier was justified in finding
Claimant derelict in his duties in the respect charged. The fact
that the failure was an act. of omission rather than emission does
not condone it nor does it bring about a valid differentiation from
dispatcher's "responsibility" in "issuing conflicting train orders",
the charge on which he was tried. To let the conflict stand when
the duty was to annul and amend had the same culpable consequences.
It has been shown that unnecessary delay was caused by the violation.
We do not find the penalty excessive nor affected by the
lesser penalty given crews involved in the same episode.
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
Award Number 22487 Page
4
Docket Number TD-22326
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: ,
Executive Secretarf
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of August 19n.
w