(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company

STAT~=_ CF C7lAI:i: (a) The Chicago, Rock Islard and Pacific Railroad
 (;1~'~.i :·f. Gibbons, Tz-astee), hereinafter
 Zeferr°_,^'. t0 a3 "the Ca~rierl', violated the Agreement in effect be7ween
 the parties, Article 7 thereof in particular, by its action in assessing
 discipline in the form of ninety (90) days actual suspension as a result
 of an investigation held December 21, 1976. That said discipline is
 arbitrary, harsh, unwarranted, and an abuse of managerial discretion.

 (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.

 OPI1`-OY OF BOARD: Claimant Train Dispatcher was suspended from the
 service of the Carrier for 90 days after an
 investigation wherein it was found that he had authorized both an
 Eastbound and a Westbound train the use of the main track at the same
 location at the same time creating thereby a lap of authority. .

 There is no question but that the Claimant did issue the authorization to both trains. The Engineer on 4533 Rest, however, did not accept his authority but called to the dispatcher's attention the fact that he had previously authorized use of the same trackage by 4539 East. The Claimant then cancelled his authorization and corrected the lap of authority.

 There is no question but that the Claimant's actions w·°.~ a in violation of the Carrier's rules governing the movenert of trains and engines by voice control. Further, the breach was serious in shat it could very well have caused a head-on col_ision. We think the ninetydar suspension was not an unduly We will deny the claim.


        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 waning 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.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of January 1980.