NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MW-26142
Irwin M. Lieberman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
STATEMENT OF
CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The disciplinary disqualification of Mr. J. L. Craig as track
foreman and the twelve (12) working days of suspension imposed upon him for
alleged 'failure to comply with MW-4, Part 1, Sections 213.5(al) and 213.6(a)
causing derailment of Train BUOI-5, head Engine 3327, on the Corning Secondary
at Beaver Dams, New York, Wednesday, June 15, 1983' was without just and sufficient cause and on the
(2) Mr. J. L. Craig's seniority as track foreman shall be restored
and unimpaired, his record cleared of the charges leveled against him and he
shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."
OPINION
OF BOARD: Claimant, with a seniority date of May 1, 1952, (and Track
Foreman's seniority of April 13, 1968) was a Section Foreman at the time of the incident involve
at about 7:30 A.M. Claimant was sent to MP 55.8 to line a joint that had kicked out. The work consis
track and replacing ballast. The entire job took about forty-five minutes.
Subsequently a northbound freight passed over the track which had been repaired. Later in the day a
and after about eighty-three cars passed over the spot a derailment occurred.
As a result of the accident, on June 16, 1983, Claimant was charged
as follows:
"To determine your alleged failure to comply with
MW-4, Part 1, Sections 213.5 (a)(1) and 213.6 (a)
causing derailment of Train BUOI-5, head Engine
3327, on the Corning Secondary at Beaver Dams.,
N.Y., Wednesday, June 15, 1983."
Following a Hearing, held on June 30, 1983, Claimant was found to be guilty of
the charges and was assessed a twelve day suspension and was disqualified as a
Foreman.
Carrier maintains that the derailment which occurred made it quite
obvious that Claimant did not properly perform his duties. Carrier points out
that Claimant's testimony verified the facts that he did not place a slow order on the track either
Award Number 26491 Page 2
Docket Number MW-26142
the track out of service. His testimony that he did not believe these actions
were necessary establishes that his judgment was at best erroneous, according
to Carrier. Furthermore, Carrier argues that Claimant did not check the gauge
in the area and made no determination as to why the track had kicked out at
the particular spot. Carrier concludes that Claimant was derelict in his duties and was guilty of th
be allowed to stand.
The Organization argues that Carrier has failed to prove that Claimant's actions were the direct
notes that the track in question was a 30 MPH secondary track but the tapes
indicated that the train which was derailed was traveling at 32 MPH at the
time of the derailment. Further, it is maintained that Claimant's responsibility was to repair the t
not comply for 30 MPH service. Claimant did all that was required of him.
The Board notes, initially, that the Claimant's Supervisor, as well
as the Supervisor of Track Inspection were aware of the problems with the particular segment of trac
the testimony at the investigation that the train crew of the train which was
derailed observed no irregularities while travelling over the rails (some 80
cars passed the point prior to the derailment). It is also apparent that
Carrier attributed the derailment to a sun kink.
A careful evaluation of the testimony presented at the Investigation
indicates no evidence whatever to establish Claimant's guilt of the charges.
The two facts, the repair activity and the derailment, do not per se indicate
Claimant's culpability. The Board concludes that Carrier has not borne its
burden of proof in this case.
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 violated.
Award Number 26491 Page 3
Docket Number MW-26142
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
',
Nancy J. )13_ve~/- Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 9th day of September 1987.