(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 It is the position of this organization that Mr. C. D. Thornton be compensated for these five days lost time at rate applicable to that of trick train dispatcher, that his personal record be cleared of all charges and discipline assessed him and that he be compensated for all lost time from his trick train dispatcher position, travel time, automobile mileage allowance, meals and lodging expenses incurred by him in attending the investigation held at Tampa, Florida as directed by carrier's officers."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On April 14, 1983, Extra L&N 3604 South collided with a
 Maintenance of Way motor car near Mile Post AR-801.5,
 Floral City, Florida. As a result of a formal Investigation held on April 26,
 1983, Train Dispatcher C. D. Thornton, the Claimant, was found guilty of
 failing to comply with Operating Rules 789 and 754 and was issued a five (5)
 day suspension. The referred to Rules in pertinent part state:





                        Docket Number TD-25970


According to the Carrier, the Claimant, as the Train Dispatcher on duty, was responsible for the safe movement of trains in his territory. He is accused of giving a 10:00 A.M. figure on when Extra L&N 3604 should pass Dunnellon when, in fact, it passed Dunnellon at 9:44 A.M. The train crew was not notified to be on the lookout for the motor car which was being operated by Apprentice Foreman Stanberry who had been advised that their train would not leave Dunnellon prior to 10:00 A.M. The Organization asserts the 10:00 A.M. figure given Apprentice Foreman Stanberry was not intended to be "precise" nor was the figure intended to be a lineup. The Organization contends the fault does not lie solely with the Claimant.

 This Board has reviewed the record, and we agree with the Carrier's contention that there can be no leeway in a lineup. If the information was not intended to be a lineup as asserted by the organization, how can we ignore the fact that in receiving a request for information, the Claimant, with years of experience, should have known the Maintenance of Way Apprentice Foreman would act upon the information received? The Claimant is charged with the responsibility for safe movement of trains and equipment on his territory. Claims of culpability on the part of others do not act to alter his responsibility.

 The evidence of record establishes that at a minimum, the Claimant was careless in the manner he handled the request for an update on the lineups. We find no basis to Claimant a five (5) day suspension.

        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 ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest4

        Nancy J. VlGer Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 27th day of February 1987.