Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28250
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-27819
 90-3-87-3-324
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The forty-five (45) demerits imposed upon Section Foreman R. C. Medrud for alleged violation of General Rules A, B, D, 600, 607(2) and 4000 of Form 7908 and Rules 1510 and 1511 of the Maintenance of Way Rules was without just and sufficient cause and in violation of the Agreement (System File D-63/013-210-M).

 (2) The claimant's record shall be cleared of the charges leveled against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 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.

On December 3, 1985, Claimant accepted an assignment to investigate a derailment which occurred on trackage near the Continental Can Company in East Los Angeles, California. Some confusion existed concerning the location and nature of the track problem, but eventually Claimant reported that he had located the problem and effected repairs. The track was placed back in service but was not used for train to use the track derailed at the same location as the earlier derailment. On December 10, 1985 the following charge:
 Form 1 Award No. 28250
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-27819
 90-3-87-3-324

Following the Investigation, Claimant was assessed discipline of 45 demerits and disqualified as a Section Foremah. The demerits assessed placed Claimant's disciplinary record in excess of 90 demerits which resulted in his dismissal. A Claim was processed on a variety of grounds, procedural and substantive, and while under consideration on the property, Claimant was reinstated without prejudic
The transcript of the Hearing does not disclose that Claimant's procedural rights, as established by the Agreement, were violated so as to flaw the Investigation. Moreover, while there is evidence that Claimant was unfamiliar with the location of the derailment, and the instructions that he was receiving by radio may not have been a model of clarity, it was established that he nonetheless problem and effected necessary repairs. It was on his assurances that the track was placed back in service.

 Claimant stated that he spent thirty to forty minutes looking for the site of the derailment. The location that he claimed that he made certain track repairs is approximately forty feet from the location of the derailment, however he stated that he did not notice any other track problems.

 It is not credible that an experienced track foreman should be excused for failure to notice the of a nearby recent retailing operation, which took place on trackage he was specifically assigned to check for this specific problem, on the basis that he volunteered for the job, or that he was unfamiliar with the area, or that the information given him concerning the problem was not crystal clear.
 Form 1 Award No. 28250
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-27819
 90-3-87-3-324

 Claimant was out of service approximately nine months. While in some situations a suspension of this duration may seem excessive in light of the nature of the offense, when it is considered in the light of Claimant's prior disciplinary record, which has seven entries in five and one-half years of service, it is not inappr







                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        ancy J. a -Executive Sec etary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 1st day of February 1990.