NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT HOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-22213-
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers
( Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
STATEMENT CF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-8419)
that:
(1) Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties, when
on March
27, 1975,
it imposed discipline of 10 days' suspension from
service upon Operator C. R. Callahan as a result of an investigation
held on March 13, 1975, which is contrary to justice and right, and
(2) Carrier shall be required to clear the service record
of operator C. R. Callahan and compensate him for all wage losses
suffered during the 10-day suspension period, from March
31, 1975
to
April 10,
1975.
OPINION OF BOARD: This case is concerned with the erroneous routing
of a train at a certain trackage area in Ohio
shortlyy before
3
AM on March 12,
1975.
The error was discovered almost
instantaneously; the train was backed-up; and it thereupon made the
proper cross-over and proceded on the correct tracks. The resulting
delay was of about 10-minute duration.
The claimant was the Block Operator (at Nr Tower, East
Columbus, Ohio) who was admittedly responsible for routing the train
contrary to the explicit directions contained in the train order.
He was an employe with an excellent record and of about nine years of
service. Following investigation, he was given a 10-day suspension
(which he served as shown in the Statement of Claim). The Organization
is here appealing the suspension, essentially contending: 1) that the
charges against the claimant were lacking in requisite precision;
2) that the penalty, in the light of the incident's harmless
consequences and in the light of the claimant's superior past record,
was unduly harsh.
Clearly owing to the claimant's utter straightforwardness,
the investigation in this instance was of the briefest sort. Yet, the
record made of it is so fully descriptive of the case and, we think, so
Award Number 22549 Page 2
Docket Number Ch-22213
fully disposes of the first of the Organization's contentions, that we
will dote the investigation transcript in its entirety;
°Q. Mr. Callahan, under date of March 12, 1975,
the following notice was sent to you: 'Please
arrange to attend investigation in
E&O
Trainmaster's Office, Newark, Ohio, at 2:00 p.m.
Thursday March
73, 1975, to determine your
responsibility, if any, in connection with
delay of approximately 10 minutes to P.C.
Train No. 31, engine 593, at Port Columbus
at approximately 2:55 a.m. March 12, 1975.
Arrange for representative and/or witnesses
if desired.' Were you properly notified of
these charges?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you desire representation?
A. No.
Q. Do you desire witnesses?
A. No.
Q. Are you rear to proceed?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Callahan, what was your assignment on the
date and time in question?
A. I was working 3rd trick Operator at NY Tower,
East Columbus.
Q. Mr. Callahan, please describe in detail all
that you know regarding the delay to train, No. 31,
engine 593, at Port Columbus on the morning of
March 12th?
A. When No.31 went by Summit, I lined him up to
cross over from 2 to 1 track at Port Columbus. When
he had crossed over, he notified the Operator at Alum
Creek that his orders read to East Columbus, not Port
Columbus. I then backed him up, brought him down to
East Columbus and crossed him over there.
Award Number 22549 Page 3
Docket Number Ch-22213
"Q. Train Order No. 205 dated March 12, 1975,
addressed to the Operator at East Columbus
reads as follows: 'No. 31, engine 593, and
Extra PC 3131 West have right over opposing
trains on #2 track Summit to East Columbus,
signed RHM'. And this train order shows as
being repeated by Operator Callahan and made
complete at 2:25 a.m. Can you verify this
as correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Callahan, why then did you line No. 31
to cross over from #2 track to #1 track at Port
Columbus?
A. Due to the fact that I had been crossing
trains over all night on this move at Port
Columbus account #1 track out of service between
Summit and Port Columbus, I crossed No. 31 over
the same way. This was in error due to train
order reading Summit to East Columbus.
Q. Are you familiar with and do you understand
in Penn Central Rules for Conducting Transportation
that part of Train Order Form D-R reading: 'Under
these orders the designated train must use the
track specified between the points named'?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with and do you understand
that part of train order form J reading: 'Approved
blocking devices mast be applied to switch or signal
levers governing all routes to track affected' and
Rule 617 reading: 'Operating levers must immediately
be blocked with approved blocking devices whenever the
operation of the lever is restricted'?
A. Yes, I am.
Award Number 22549 Page 4
Docket Number CL-22213 ,
"Q. Since you have already stated that you
lined No. 31 to cross over at Port Columbus
in error, instead of at East Columbus as the
train order specified, did you comply with
these rules in this instance?
A. No.
Q. Are you familiar with and do you understand
that part of Rule 400 N-11 reading: 'They
(Operators) are responsible for the delivery of
train orders and messages to the persons addressed,
arranging the use of blocks, tracks, interlocking
switches, and signals and prompt movement of
trains in accordance with the rules, train orders
and special instructions'?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you comply with this rule in this instance?
A. No, but it was not intentional. It was an
error on my part.
Q. Do you accept responsibility for the delay of
approximately 10 minutes to Penn Central train
No. 31 in this instance?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Callahan, are you satisfied that this has
been a fair and impartial investigation and
conducted in accordance with agreement rules?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any additional evidence which you desire
to present in this case?
A. No."
We do not see how, on this record, we can properly sustain the
Union's first contention. It is true that the directive to the claimant
to attend the investigation is couched in terms of ascertaining whether
the claimant should be held responsible for the incident and that the directive was subsequently use
Award Number 22549 Page 5
Docket Number CL-22213
possibly be any question that the claimant was of complete understanding
as to the offense Management considered him guilty of when it suspended
him. To view the suspension as defective for lack of charge precision
would be, not to hold due-process concerns, but to insist on form without regard for substance.
The real question in the case concerns the severity of the
discipline. We have nothing but respect for the integrity with which the
claimant conducted himself in the investigation. And we have not lost
sight either of the fact of his excellent record or of the fact that his
mistake was quickly corrected and ended up being essentially harmless.
Hut we think the controlling considerations are that the claimant's
position is one of high responsibility and that the mistake which the
claimant made, both in that light and in the light of its potentially
disastrous consequences, must be viewed as intolerable carelessness. It
is the sort of mistake as to which the discharge penalty is by no means
unheard-of. We cannot properly declare the 10-day suspension to be
excessive.
FINDoGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Hoard, upon the whole
record and all. the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
That the Carrier and the Employer inolved 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.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
RATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
&eet:41r~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of September 1979.