C.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Award Number 24848
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-24581
George V. Boyle, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Burlington Northern, Inc.:
On behalf of Assistant Signalman Pete Molenda, Crew 339, Billings,
Montana, for all time ZDst as a result of discipline assessed following investigation
held November 3, 1980, and any reference to that investigation be cleared from his
personal records. (General Chairman file: B-81-240. Carrier file: S1 81-3-24).
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, Assistant Signalman, Pete Molenda, was assigned
to work. with a CTC Maintainer to locate a problem along a pole
line. While so engaged they left a motor car unattended on the main track and it
was struck by a work train destroying the car.
After a hearing, the Carrier suspended the claimant for a period of
30 days for violation of Rules 40 and 74 and entered a notation to that effect in
the claimant's personal record.
The Employees, on behalf of the claimant, assert that:
"1) Carrier violated Rule 2F when it held claimant responsible.
2) The Maintainer did not read the line-up to claimant.
3) Claimant was following directions of the Maintainer.
4) The Maintainer did not tell claimant to be on the lookout far the train
5) The discipline rendered was cruel and unjust."
They allege further that the Carrier erred procedurally in that it
was not specific in charges against the claimant.
Dealing with this last allegation first, there -s nothing remarkable
or improper _'r. the Carrier's notice of investigation. It specified that Claimant is
to attend "for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining responsibility
in connection :with your motor car BNX 3658 being struck by Work Extra 1925 at
approximately 2:00 P.:·4. October 22, 1980 at MP 122". Based upon the
testimony
at the hearing the Claimant was then suspended "for viola=ion of Rules 40 and 74
of the Rules of Maintenance of Way Department". There is nothing out of the
ordinary in this and certainly does not constitute a procedural error for lack
of s^ecificitu.
'he other allegations deal with Claimant's culpability and similarly
must be dismissed. By the Claimant's own admission he violated Rule 40:
Docket Number SG-24581 Page 2
"78. Q. Mr. Molenda, Rule 40 of the 'Burlington Northern Rules of
the Maintenance of Way Department' Operating Department
Form 15125 reads as follows:
'The time of all trains must be cleared no less than 10
minutes. If the line-up indicates a scheduled train is
running late,
the late time will be used. In figuring the
time of any train betreen station the maximum authorized
speed for the train will be used. Only train location
time issued by train dispatcher can be used in clearing
trains. Train movement information from any other source
must not be used in clearing trains.'
Did you comply with Rule 40?
A. No."
With respect to Rule 74, although the Claimant denies that he violated
it, in the next breath his statement is an admission of guilt.
"79. Q. . . .
Did you comply with Rule 74?
A. Yes.
80. Q. Did you leave your Motor Car on the main line unattended?
A. No, we were fairly close, by the time we noticed it, the
train, it was still too late to do anything."
The E^mplocf:es argument on behalf of the Claimant that he was ignorant
of the line-up or only following the directions of the maintainer is specious.
The Claimant had been examined on the rules and qualified to carry out his
responsibilities in a safe manner. To hold him blameless for any untoward
occurrence would be to exemot him from exercising proper care in the performance
of his duties. This the Board will not do; the Carrier's action is upheld.
FINDINGS: The Third Division. of the Adjustment Beard, 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 24848
Locket Number SG-24581 Page 3
A WAR D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST
Nanc Dever - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of June, 1984