(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 "It is this Organizations positibn that Mr. Skipper now be paid.for time lost attending this investigation and for the five days suspension at rate applicable to that of trick train dispatcher and his record cleared of references to this incident."

 OPINION OF BOARD: On November 29, 1983, the Claimant was advised to attend an
 Investigation to determine facts and place responsibility, if any, in connection with his alleged failure to protect against Train No. 381, AATTA, which departed from Moncrief on November 18, 1983, twenty-seven (27) minutes ahead of lineup update which had been furnished by the Claimant .., to a Roadmaster on that same date. After postponement the, Investigation was held on December 12, 1983. On December 30, 1983, the Claimant was advised that he had been found guilty of violation of operating Rule 754 and he was assessed a five (5) day actual suspension.



Both the testimony at the Investigation by Roadmaster A. B. Hall, and the documentary record of the phone conversation on November 18, 1983 between the Claimant, as Dispatcher, artTRoadmavtet^:Ha31 shows, that the Claimant informed
 the Roadmaster that Train No. 381 was scheduled to leave Moncrief Terminal in _
 Jacksonville at 11:30 A.M. The Roadmaster was informed of this by the Claim
 ant prior to 10:28 A.M. on the morning of Novembez 18, 1983. It was not until
 after 11:43 that the Roadmaster was apprised of the fact that the train in
 question had, in fact, ,departed ftdni'Moncrief at 11:03 A.M. on that day. _ _ _
 There can be no doubt fiom'the evide"e of record that the Claimant was-remiss
 in carrying out his duties. The evidence shows that the Claimant wad considT
 eiably cavalier in recognizing his responsibilities in.,updating informat-ia-;itxq ,
 the Roadmaster when he knew that the train in question%ad left ';::.27°!txiquteg,:.,
 ahead of" the origina1,11:30 A.M. departure time. On .the bails bfirthe evi
 dence before it the instant Claim cannot be aastained on m Pfta:' PlAor Awards
 from this Division have underlined that Diap6Rchers cannot be careless in the
 manner in which updat0a=on line-ups are handled (Thitda`bjvfaion Award 28247),
                        Docket Number TD-26690


The only issue to be resolved is whether the discipline assessed by the Carrier was arbitrary or capricious. The Claimant is a long-term employe with the Carrier with a Dispatcher seniority date of June 23, 1956. A review of the Claimant's disciplinary record, however, shows that he had received demerits on four (4) different occasions, and one ten (10) day suspension, in the past for violating various operating Rules or for failure to deliver Train Orders. The National Railroad Adjustment Board has precedentially ruled on numerous occasions that a Claimant's past disciplinary record can serve as basis for assessing the quantum of discipline (Second Division Awards 5790, 6632, 8527; Third Division Awards 21043, 22320). There is no showing here, therefore, that the Carrier did not reasonably apply the principle of progressive discipline and the disturbed.

        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 Employee 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


Attest.
        Nancy ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of April 1987.