(Brotherhood of maintenance of way Employes
 PARTIES 70 DISPUTE:
 (National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
 (Northeast Corridor

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

1. The disciplinary demotion of Track Foreman M. R. Thanas, his disqualification as foreman and the

posed upon him for alleged violation of NRPC operating Rule '910' was unreasonable, unwarranted and

SD-695D).

2. Mr. M. R. Thanas' seniority as track foreman shall be restored and unimpaired, his record shall be cleared of the charge leveled against him, he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered and he shall be allowed the difference between what he would have received at the track foreman's rate and what he was paid in a lower rated position until he is returned to work as a

track foreman with seniority as such unimpaired."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On August 3, 1983, Claimant Thomas reported for work as a

Track Foreman. He was not told there was a Section of rail missing in an area where rail work was underway. At the subsequent Hearing it was established certain other Carrier Supervisors were aware a Section was out of service. While walking through a tunnel on his rounds Claimant saw a track car approaching and at the same time heard a Flagman's horn indicating an

approaching train. He held up his hand and the track car stopped. After the train passed he allowed the track car (an 07 Tamper) to continue moving in a northerly direction. After traveling a distance the Tamper derailed because of the missing Section. A Burro Crane being used in the rail work had been

left at the north end of the area of the missing rail but no barricade had
 been erected at the south end as is required by Carriers' Rules.

      on August 8, 1983, Claimant was notified of a trial to be held on

August 23 in connection with his alleged violation of Rule 910 which states in part:


          "Foreman - Track are responsible for the safe condition of track . . . in their charge . . Whenever track does not conform to these standards, they will immediately take appropriate protective or corrective action . . Foremen - Track are responsible for safety instruction and safe performance of all employees under their jurisdiction. They are responsible for the care and proper use of tools, material and equipment . . . ."

                      Award Number 26218 Page 2

                      Docket Number MW-26268


The Notice of Trial specification read:

          "In that on August 3, 1983 at approximately 4:45 P.M. in the Gilmore Tunnel, you stopped 1306 track car on your out of service track and then signaled to 1306 to proceed north into an unsafe track condition resulting in the derailment of said track car."


At the Hearing no one testified Claimant had been informed of the missing rail although at least two of Carrier's Supervising staff on duty were aware of it. However, Project Engineer Coleman who left the property at 3:00 P.M. stated he received a call at his hone from Claimant a little after 6:00 P.M. They discussed what had happened and "I asked him if he saw they had rail out, he informed me that he did." Claimant denied saying this. He testified he told Coleman in an MCI Field Engineer. Recalled, Coleman answered "I can't recall" when asked if Claimant mentioned the MCI Engineer to him when they spoke.

 Burro Crane Foreman Lockwood described the location of the derailment as the Wilson Tunnel.

 On September 6, 1983, Claimant was notified of discipline of "Fifteen (15) working days suspension; disqualification as a foreman." Appeals followed. on March 21, 1984, A wrote:

          ". . . we are agreeable, strictly on a leniency basis to removing the disqualification as a foreman. The Appellant may exercise his foreman seniorit which he may be qualified . . . in all other regards, the appeal is denied."


The organization contends the charge was not sufficiently specific in that it describes the Gilmore Tunnel rather than the Wilson Tunnel as the site of the derailment. It also contends others were at fault in not notifying Claimant of the derailment. It considers Coleman's testimony as having been impeached by his inability to recall whether the MCI Engineer had been discussed in the phone conver entire conversation is unreliable. It notes there is nothing in the record to suggest Claimant accepted Carrier's offer of leniency.
                      Award Number 26218 Page 3

                      Docket Number MW-26268


This Board does not agree Coleman's inability to recall whether an MCI Engineer was mentioned in his conversation with Claimant impeaches his testimony. In taking the position it does the Organization relies upon cases holding that where a witness has testified falsely regarding one matter, his testimony regarding other matters is not probative. This Board fully endorses that principle - but it is not applicable here. There is no basis to conclude Coleman testified falsely regarding the MCI Engineer when he stated he didn't recall that being mentioned.

 This Board has consistently held we are not in a position to resolve factual conflicts or determine the credibility of witnesses. Thus we conclude there was evidence adduced at the Hearing upon which Carrier could rely in determining Claimant violated Rule 910. It may be the evidence established others were also at fault but that does not exonerate Claimant.

 It is this Board's understanding from the letter of March 21, 1984, that Claimant's disqualification has been removed and his seniority is unimpaired. Accordingly, we s
        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;

 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 AGIUSTMFNIT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest:

        Nancy J. ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of January 1987.