(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 (Consolidated Rail Corporation

 STATENIINT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Consolidated Rail Corporation

That Signal Maintainer M. A. Doyle be restored to service and be paid for all time and benefits lost since his suspension from service on May 9, 1980 and subsequent dismissal."

 (Carrier file: System Docket 1511)

 OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, M. A. Doyle, entered the service of the Carrier as
 a Signalaaa Helper on May 5, 1972 and was subsequently pro
 moted to Signal Maintainer. An investigation was held on May 16, 1980 in re
 gards to the charge that Claimant failed to properly perform service is connec
 tion with revising the Krimpko Switch at Clark, New Jersey on may 8, 1980
 resulting in a false indication being displayed to traffic approaching 191
 Signal. Claimant was notified by Notice of Discipline, dated May 23, 19°0
 that he was "Dismissed in all Capacities."

 Claimant's discipline was thereafter appealed up to and including the Senior Director-Labor Relations. The Senior Director-Labor Relations denied Claimant's appeal by letter dated July 8, 1980. Following s conference held on July 23, 1980, the Senior Director-Labor Relations reaffirmed denial of Claimant's appeal by a letter dated July 28, 1980. The Carrier maintains that testimony by Supervisor J. Stanko indicates that Claimant Doyle failed is his responsibilities as a Signal Maintainer. 9:r. Sts>:to testified that Claire= Doyle did not receive permission for the work he was doing and that procedure required that Claimant receive permission. hr. Stanko farther testified that Claimant did no: make the proper tests at the Signal location which ·.aou=3 have avoided the incident.

 :h'. Stanko's testimony is corroborated by the testimony of Assistant Supervisor F. Wilcews'xi. In addition, the Claimant admitted :hat he did not arrange to have proper






                  Docket Number SG-2102


    "2: Are ,you aware that it is necessary to have a switch point protection on `,.he switch?


        A: Yes, I am."


Claimant Doyle further testified that he knew sufficient tests seeded to be made after making revisions to K:impko Ssritci:. The terrier maintains that sufficient tests were not made.

 The Carrier maintains that the seriousness of an offense and the tragic events which may have resulted therefrom is a proper determinant is arriving at the degree of discipline to be imposed (Award Nos. 11887 and 14768). The terrier further maintains that an employe's past record may be considered in assessing discipline (Award Nos. 6307 and 16244). Claimant Doyle had been disciplined twice before on November 25, 1975 and May 26, 1977.

 The Carrier also maintains that the dereliction or negligence of others is not 3ustification for the actions of an employs who also is derelict or negligent (Award Nos. 11555 and 13399).

 The Claimant was allegedly in violation of "General Instructions C S 23 #7" as follows: "Alterations or additions must not be made to any individual components involving si authorized." Claimant's no`_orized statement dated May 15, 1980 stated that he received authority "...to remove our stuff..." from Supervisor J. Stanko at approximately 7:15 A.M. on May 8. In addition, according to Claimant's statement, Mr. J. Savarese, the Carrier's Maintenance of Way Supervisor advised that the "...points, out at Yaimpko siding is Clark and it would be straight railed and this must be done today, May 8, 1980, no matter what." The Claimant also asserts that he notified Supervisor Stanko at 2:00 P.M. on May 8 of removal of the controller on the siding"...and that the HD and HHD wires were moved in the case at the cut section." Supervisor Stanko denied this assertion although he stated that Claimant Doyle had "talked about something."

 Claimant Doyle was also charged with "Alleged violation-General Instruction C & S 23, X25 When any changes are made, sufficient tests shall be performed promptly to assure signal system is functioning as intended. All such modifications shall be recorded on C & S 4 by the responsible man making the changes." Upon restoration of the track, the Claimant conducted normal tests to assure that the governing signal was functioning as intended. However., unknown to the Claimant, a condition existed which caused a spurious signal aspect. The Claimant sought authority for overtime work to pe
                    Award Number 23998 Page 3

                    Docket Number SG-24102


The third Carrier rule allegedly violated by the Claimant is as follows: "Alleged Violation-Changes and Tests Incident thereto C & S 23, ,257-Before Final cutoff,, all circuits changed must be thoroughly tested as far as possible, and final arrangement must be tested in entirety by a supervisory employs other than the man in charge." Claimant maintains that supervisory personnel were aware of the "straight-railing" project sad the associated signal circuit changes. The Supervisors, however, failed to comply with the provisions of Rules No. 257 and entire responsibility was attributed to the Claimant.

 The Claimant maintains that it is improper for management to punish an employs for improper work performance when management had effectively "encouraged and abet
The Claimant further maintains that Carrier's previous policy was one of not assessing more than ten (10) days suspension for similar offenses. The Hearing Officer, however, would not allow examination into this area.

 Claimant maiatiaas that the Carrier was at least equally responsible for the incident and that t during the investigative hearing by restricting examination by the Claimant's representative.

 Upon careful consideration of the record herein the Board finds that the discipline imposed under the circumstances was excessive. The Bawd notes that total culpability cannot be ascribed to the Claimant in. this matter. Furthermore ia.a related case (Docket SG-24055) involving another employs, the Carrier imposed discipline of suspension and not dismissal.

 Under these circumstances the Board reinstates Claimant without backpay and seniority and ell other rights unimpaired.

        FIND321GS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon `,.he whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


        That the parties waived oral hearing;


That the (terrier and the Faaployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning o: 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 discipline was excessive.

              Award Nssaber 23998 Page 4

              - Docket Number SG-24102

                                                          -


                      A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


                          NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTM T BOARD

                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BY
 ,~R semarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant

                                                        Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 17th day of September 19$2. t


. ~~GEiveo~'''~

 pp i 1 ~ ~~
 Ch; ~~,;y..

 pogo Office- O