NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MS-27117
(James Moreau
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Louisiana 6 Arkansas Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Please be advised that Mr. James Moreau is a member of Maintenance
of Ways, Local 569, Jasper, Texas as a machine operator. This is to serve
notice, as required by the rules of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, of
the intention of my client, Mr. James Moreau, to file an ex parte submission
on or before June 13, 1986, covering an unadjustment dispute between my client
and the Kansas City_Southern Railway Company. It involves the question of
whether or not Mr. Moreau was responsible for an accident which occurred on
November 16, 1983 at Whelan Wood Yard, Louisiana and should have been dismissed from his duties with
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was one of six employes notified to attend an
investigation to determine responsibility for an accident
which resulted in a derailment that caused very extensive damage to equipment
and personal injury, including the loss of one life. The investigation took
place on December 8, 1983, at Shreveport, La.
Testimony at the investigation established that Claimant, a Machine
Operator, was one of a crew operating three track machines on November 16,
1983. They were required to switch into what is known as the Whelan Wood Yard
to permit a northbound train to pass. Thereafter the train ran into the
Wood Yard, striking the machines, derailing and turning over five engines and
seven cars.
There was abundant testimony at the hearing to establish the accident and derailment was caused
rather than being lined back for the main line and locked before the train was
authorized to proceed. The Foreman of Claimant's gang stated he expected
Claimant, who had lined the switch into the Wood Yard, to line the switch back
for the main line. He stated Claimant walked back toward the switch after the
machines were in the Wood Yard and then gave him a hand signal which he took
as meaning the switch had been properly lined. The Foreman then spoke with
the Engineer of the train by radio and authorized him to proceed.
Claimant testified he had lined the switch to the Wood Yard so the
track machines could clear for the northbound train. He followed the two
other machines in and then walked back to the switch but he "couldn't say"
whether he lined it for the main track. He admitted it was his responsibility
to do so and he believed the accident could not have happened if the switch
had been so lined. He could only respond, "Not that I recall," when asked if
he gave the Foreman a sign indicating he had locked and lined the switch.
Award Number 26369 Page 2
Docket Number MS-27117
By letter dated December 16, 1983, the Carrier notified Claimant:
"After careful review of the transcript of the
investigation decision has been reached that
you were responsible and that you are hereby
dismissed from the service of this Company
immediately."
The Foreman was dismissed also.
On January 17, 1984, the Organization appealed that Claimant be reinstated as a laborer "on a le
22, 1984. The Organization then appealed, again on a leniency basis, and the
request was denied by letter of May 16, 1984.
On May 24, 1984, the Carrier wrote the Organization stating the
Claim had been withdrawn in conference the previous day. This began a lengthy
exchange of correspondence in which the Organization repeatedly insisted there
was a misunderstanding and the Claim had not been withdrawn. Finally on
February 11, 1985, Carrier agreed to a sixty day extension for progression of
the Claim to this Board.
By letter of April 14, 1985, an Attorney served this Board with
notice of intention to file an Ex Parte Submission on Claimant's behalf on or
before May 15, 1985. The Ex Parte Submission was not filed until May 14,
1986. In it the argument is made that responsibility for the derailment rests.
with the Foreman, not with Claimant.
Carrier asserts the Claim is not properly before this Board. It
points to Rule 14(c) of the Agreement which states in part:
"Ail claims
...
involved in a decision by the
highest designated officer shall be barred
unless within 9 months from the date of said
officer's decision proceedings are instituted by
the employe or his duly authorized representative before the appropriate division of the
National Railroad Adjustment Board
....
The record shows the Claim was denied by Carrier's highest designated officer on May 16, 1984. T
whether the Claim had been withdrawn. Shortly before expiration of the nine
months within which the Claim had to be progressed to this Board, Carrier
agreed to a 60 day extension. Within the sixty days notice of intention to
file an Ex Parte Submission was served, but the submission was not filed until
more than one year later. When filed, it raised arguments never made on the
property and never the subject of a conference.
Award Number 26369 Page 3
Docket Number MS-27117
As the investigation revealed substantial evidence upon which
Carrier could conclude Claimant's responsibility, and as there is no evidence
the investigation was other than fair and impartial this Board, in keeping
with firmly established precedent, will not disturb the Carrier's judgment.
We are further of the view that the Claim is defective as untimely and as
being a different Claim from that progressed on the property.
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
Attest:
Nancy J D er - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of June 1987.