% " NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 _ Award Number .24573
 THIRD DIVISION Locket Number MW-24783




      PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

                    (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company


      STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:


      (1) The dismissal of Welder K. V. Tyre for alleged violation of

      Agreement Rule 17(b) and Carrier's Rule "G-1" was excessive and wholly disproportionat

      to the charges levelled against him [System File 37-SCL-81-15/12-39(81-28) G].


      (2) The claimant shall be reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and he shall be compensated for ail wage loss suffered.


                  OPINION OF BOARD: Prior to his dismissal, Claimant was employed by the Carrier as a welder, with about five years of service. At the time

      !' of the occurrence giving rise to the claim herein, Claimant was under the supervision of Roadnaster H. Bashlor.


      On March 16, 1981, Claimant was assigned as a welder on Gang No. 9221 at Fitzgerald, Ga., with a four-day work week of ten. ':ours per day. When he left the work site on Thursday afternoon, where he had been making field welds, he was instructed to return to Fitzgerald the following Monday and finish a rail joint at that location. He was also instructed to contact the dispatcher and obtain the necessary "Y" orders f;_ the safe passage of trains and for the protection of employes performing rai- work in progress on the tracks. Claimant arranged for the necessary "Y" orders.


            On March 20, 1981, Claimant was charged:


            'On Monday March 16., 1981, you did not protect your assignment on welding gang 9221 which you had a 'Y" order out in your name.


                As result of you not protecting your assignment on

            Monday March 16, 1981, you are hereby charged with violation

            of 17 IBI of the current agreement between Seaboard Coast

            Line Railroad and Maintenance of Way :mployees. Also you

            are charged with that portion of Rule G-1 of the Book of

            Operating Rules which reads as follows:

            incompetency, willful neglect, will subject the

            offender to dismissal.'


I
                    Award Number 24573 Page 2

                    locket Number MW-24783


        "A hearing will be conducted in the trainmaster's office in Cordele, Ca., on Tuesday, March 24, 1981, at 1:30 P. M. at which time you will-be present to answer the charges. You may be represented by the duly accredited representative of the Employees and may have present any witnesses who have knowledge of this incident. It will

        be your responsibility to arrange for the presence of your.

        witness. Your personal record will be subject to review

        in the hearing."


'''T2.e"Ilearirg-;ras-canducted-&s schedul®d'ahd"en'ldarch 31, 1981, Claimant was dismissed from the service. A copy of the transcript of the hearing, or investigation, has been made a part of the record. The hearing, or investigation, was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. None of Claimant's substantive procedural rights was violated.
In the hearing the Claimant testified that between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m., on Monday, March 16, 1981, he received a telephone call from a person with whom he apparently had, or was having, some real estate dealings, that it was necessary that they see an attorney that day about a tax situation; that he attempted three times between 7:30 A.M. and 8:15 A. M. to telephone the Roadmaster, but was unable to get an answer. He admitted, however, that he made no attempt through the Dispatcher, or anyone in authority, to annul the "Y" order. He insisted, however, that he attempted to call the Roadmaster at the latter's office, where he usually called him.
If the..Carrier is going to hold employes responsible for not calling their supervisors, then it would only seem proper that the Carrier have someone available at the supervisor's usual calling place to answer the telephone if an employe does attempt to call in.
The issue that seriously concerns the Board is the failure of the Claimant to protect the "Y" order, or arrange for its cancellation. Such action on his part could have resulted =n serious consequences.
Based upon our review of the entire record before the Board, we are convinced that severe discipline was warranted. However, permanent dismissal was excessive. The time that Claimant has been out of service should constitu=e sufficient discipline. We will award that Claimant be restored to the service with seniority and other rights unimpaired, but without any compensation for time lost while out of service.
                                                            l

                    Award Number 24573 Page 9

                    Docket Number M'.J-24783


        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 Enployes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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 .L~vo1·ved"herein;..,and _
        That the discipline was excessive.


                          A W A R D


        Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy J verl- Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 15th day of December 1983.