Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27324
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. TD-27419
88-3-86-3-779
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dana E. Eischen when award was rendered.
(American Train Dispatchers' Association
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Burlington Northern Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "[i]t is requested that Mr. J. L. Ceaser be returned to
the service of the Burlington Northern Ry. Co. as a
Train Dispatcher, properly trained, with all seniority rights and other benefits restored, all loss
all charges."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was working as Train Dispatcher on duty on third trick June
13, 1984, when "lap orders" were issued to an eastbound and westbound train,
operating in single track territory by train orders only. The trains collided
head-on near Motley, Minnesota at about 1:00 a.m. on June 14, 1984. The
accident resulted in three fatalities and millions of dollars in damages.
All involved employes, including Claimant, were given written notice
on June 18, 1984, to attend a formal investigation on June 22, 1984, to ascertain facts and responsi
injuries. Subsequently, both the ATDA and UTU requested additional postponements which were granted.
were issued setting the investigation for July 10, 1984. The hearing and
investigation was conducted on July 10, 1984, but Claimant failed or refused
to appear and the hearing was held in his absence.
Although Claimant and the Organization suggest that he was deprived
of notice and opportunity to attend the hearing, the record evidence is to the
Form 1 Award No. 27324
Page 2 Docket No. TD-27419
88-3-86-3-779
contrary. Persuasive evidence indicates that the notice of investigation, as
well as all subsequent cancellations and rescheduling notices, were handdelivered to Claimant's resi
wife. According to unrefuted testimony from Carrier's Chief Dispatcher, Claimant personally acknowle
offices to pick up his paycheck. From all the available evidence we conclude
that Claimant was aware of the hearing and investigation of July 10, 1984, but
declined or refused to attend or participate in that hearing upon the advice
of his attorney.
On the basis of evidence developed at the hearing Carrier concluded
that Claimant had issued the fatal lap orders to the two trains, thus placing
them on a collision course. Carrier found Claimant guilty of violating General Rule A, Rules S-88 an
and Items No. lE and 12D of the Train Dispatchers' Manual, for failing to
provide train order protection for the trains resulting in head-on collision.
Failure to call as witnesses Carrier officers who had no familiarity with the
accident was not shown to be prejudicial to the fairness of the hearing.
There is substantial record evidence to support Carrier's conclusion of Claimant's culpability. Even
passed all training and qualification examinations and was ostensibly a fully
qualified Train Dispatcher. In the circumstances, we cannot find that the
discipline imposed by Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. ev~f -Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of August 1988.