Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
This case involves two Claimants, a Track Foreman and a Trackman. On August 22, 1989, the Foreman was in charge of the movement of a hi-rail truck and a tie crane which was pulling two push cars during their on-rail movement from Joliet, Illinois to West Chicago, Illinois. The Foreman was driving the hi-rail truck and the Trackman was operating the tie crane which was pulling the two push cars. During this movement, the tie crane and its two push cars were involved in a crossing accident with an automobile in the vicinity of Plainfield, Illinois. As a result of this accident, the Claimants were instructed by notice dated August 30, 1989, to appear for an Investigation on September 6, 1989, to develop facts and determine responsibility, if any, in connection with the collision. Both Claimants were informed that they had been found to have responsibility in the accident. The Foreman was disciplined by an assessment of thirty demerits. The Trackman was disciplined by an assessment of fifteen demerits. There are no procedural errors present in the on-property handling of this case and it is properly before this Board for resolution.
The position of the organization in this case is that the charge notice issued to the claimants was not precise as required by Rule 57 (a) of the Agreement and therefore the entire proceeding was tainted. It further argues that the operator of the automobile which collided with the push cars which were being pulled by the tie crane was the primary culprit in this collision -not the Claimants.
The Carrier's position is that the Claimants were properly charged and found at fault on the basis of substantial evidence including the Claimant's own testimony and that the discipline as assessed was commensurate with the proven infraction.
We have examined the hearing notice and the hearing transcript and are of the opinion that the notice of hearing was sufficiently precise to apprise the Claimants of the purpose of the hearing and the situation which was to be investigated. At the beginning of the hearing, each Claimant candidly acknowledged that he was ready to proceed with the hearing. The testimony of each Claimant at the hearing established the fact that they knew what was being investigated and were cognizant of their role in the investigation. The Organization's argument relative to "precise charge" is, therefore, rejected.
From the testimony of the Claimants, it is apparent that they each knew that they had a responsibility to manually flag the crossing. The Foreman readily admitted: Form 1 Award No. 30118
The Trackman/tie crane operator acknowledged that, as he moved the tie crane on to the crossing, he saw the automobile approaching the crossing. He stopped his movement, and then decided to continue across the road crossing. He testified:
Both men admitted that there was no flagman at the crossing. The Foreman acknowledged that he did not instruct any of the other crew members to flag the crossing. The responsibility of the Claimants has been established by substantial evidence. The claim as presented to the Board is denied.