The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Carol J. Zamperini when award was rendered.
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
The Claimant was employed as a Train Dispatcher at Galesburg, Illinois, assigned to the First Subdivision, which governs the movement of trains between Chicago and Aurora, Illinois. The Claimant's duties included switching trains in and out of the Ceco Intermodal Ramp Facility ("Ceco") at Cicero, Illinois.
On March 21, 1992, Train No. 01-012-18 (No. 12) left Eola heading for its ultimate destination of House 7 Track. On the way, the train had to drop several cars into the Ceco Intermodal Ramp Form 1 Award No. 31185
The Organization argues that the Carrier has failed to meet its burden of proof. They suggest the Carrier relied upon the testimony of the Engineer who had a vested interest in the outcome of the investigation. Furthermore, they do not believe that the transcript of the radio communication which occurred on the day of the accident substantiates the testimony of the Engineer. They contend the Dispatcher had no way of knowing the train consisted of four double stack cars. They point out she was 300 miles from the site and had to rely totally on what she was told by the traincrew, the Yardmaster and the East, End Tower Operator. In this regard, they claim there is no evidence the Claimant was ever advised that the consist contained four double stacked cars.
The Carrier claims both the Engineer and the Yardmaster advised the Claimant about the double stack cars. They also point out that Train No. 12 always carries double stack cars and the Claimant should have been aware of the fact. Furthermore, they believe it was the Claimant's responsibility to actively determine what kind of cars were involved before she switched the train out of the Ceco Ramp. Her failure to ascertain the kind of cars involved was a dereliction of duty. The Carrier points out that the Engineer, the Conductor and the Claimant were suspended for 30 calendar days.
The Board has reviewed the record in this matter carefully. Despite a very cogent argument by the Organization, we find the Claimant was at least in part responsible for the accident. We would agree with the organization that the Engineer had a vested interest in claiming he advised the Claimant about the four double stack cars. If his was the only evidence against the Claimant, the Form 1 Award No. 31185
Carrier might have been remiss in concluding the Claimant was guilty. However, in addition to the testimony of the Engineer, the Yardmaster also testified he had informed the Claimant about the double stack cars when the train left Eola. Besides his testimony, there is the fact that Train No. 12 almost always carries double stack cars. In view of those two things, the Claimant at least had the responsibility of assuring what cars the train carried before she switched in onto Main Track No. 1.
In view of the Claimant's previous record and the seriousness of the accident, the Board believes the 30 calendar day suspension was reasonable.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.