(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight ( Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company


1. Carrier violated the terms of the current Agreement, particular Rule 21 when it assessed an actual sixty (60) day suspension on Mr. Joseph C. Eichman, Train Order Clerk, as the result of a formal investigation held on December 31, 1981, and
2. Carrier shall be required to compensate Mr. Joseph C. Eichman for all monetary losses suffered account serving the actual sixty (60) day suspension commencing January 6, 1982, and his record cleared of all charges preferred against him.
OPINION OF BOARD: At the time this dispute arose Claimant was employed as an
 Operator at Broadway Tower at Green Bay, Wisconsin. By letter dated December 29, 1981., the Carrier advised the Claimant to attend a formal investigation concerning the following charge:


An investigation was held on December 31, 1981, after which Claimant was assessed sixty (60) days' actual suspension.
The Carrier contends that the Claimant violated its rules governing operation on the Green Bay Subdivision when he permitted Job No. 13, which was travelling west from Tavi1, and Job No. 04, travelling east from Broadway on the same westbound main line, without adequately informing each crew of the other's whereabouts. The rule in question is contained in Carrier's time table and reads as follows:


The Carrier argues that the rule specifically required the Claimant to fully apprise the crew of each train as to the whereabouts and movement of the other. The Carrier contends that the Claimant did not act promptly and expeditiously to take control of the situation resulting in the placement of two trains on the same track heading towards each other and, possibly, causing a serious accident.
                    Docket Number CL-25225


The Organization asserts that the Claimant was not at fault. It argues that blame, if any, must lie with the crews of each train who did not know of the exact whereabouts of the other train. The Organization further asserts that the Job #04 was tardy in proceeding towards the coach yard, which resulted in the near accident. Finally, the Organization suggests that it is inequitable for the Carrier to single out the Claimant and impose a sixty-day suspension, when some nine (9) other employes were involved in the incident.
We have reviewed the entire record. We first point out that our findings are based solely on evidence and arguments raised on the property. Thus, for example, we have not considered the Organization's contentions relating to the conduct of the proceeding since they were not first raised on the property.
We believe that while there exists substantial evidence of Claimant's guilt, a sixty (60) day suspension is harsh and excessive.
Claimant was the Block Operator at Broadway Tower on the morning of December 28, 1981. As such, he was responsible for train movements in Broadway yard at that time. This responsibility obligated him to inform crews of train Nos. 13 and 04 of the whereabouts of the other train, particularly where, as here, clearance had been given for the No. 13 to operate westbound, and the No. 04 to operate eastbound on the same stretch of track. While Claimant may have spoken to the crew of each train, he did not inform each crew of the specific whereabouts of the other. As such, he created a potentially dangerous situation.
Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, we do not believe that a sixty (60) day actual suspension is warranted. It is clear that some responsibility for this incident must also lie with the train crews themselves, particularly the crew of No. 13. They had to know that by not proceeding immediately into the west end of the coach house they were running the risk of a near collision.

 In our view, an appropriate penalty is a ten (10) day actual suspension. Claimant, in two and a half years of service had been previously given a tenday deferred suspension. similar offense is to be taken as a clear reminder that he must fully apprise train crews of movement and location, particularly in situations similar to those present here.
        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 meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
                    Award Number 25108 Page 3

                    Docket Number CL-25225


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved 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


        i~


ATTEST
        Nancy J. fever - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 9th day of November 1984.