"Claim of the System Committee of the Organization (GL-11123) that:

1. The Company violated the Rules Agreement effective June 1, 1972,

as amended, when they arbitrarily suspended Mr. Adan Cavazos,

Laredo, Texas, from service for a thirty (30) day period. That the

company displayed a complete and utter abuse of discretion; denied

him a fair and impartial investigation and rendered excessive and

unwarranted discipline.

2. The Company shall be required to reimburse Adan Cavazos for

each workday he was withheld from service at the rate of his

position. He should also be compensated all overtime he would have

worked had he remained an employee of the Company subject to a

check of the Company's records. He should be allowed an amount

of Interest allowable by law, on any monies that have been deprived

him on account of the Company's unjust, unreasonable and

arbitrary action; and clear his personal record of any mention of

this alleged disciplinary incident."

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction o- - r the dispute involved herein.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

This is a companion case to Third Division Award 31847. At the time of the incident precipitating this case, Claimant held the position Chief Clerk in Carrier's Yard Office at Corpus Christi, Texas. His seniority date is July 3, 1962. Following the October 31, 1993 derailment, Claimant was notified to appear for an Investigation concerning his "responsibility, if any, in connection with [the derailment." Following the Investigation, Claimant was assessed a 30 day actual suspension.

The Carrier maintains that Claimant showed poor judgment in relaying important information regarding a damaged track to an inexperienced employee, rather than to a properly designated Carrier Officer. Under the circumstances, the Carrier argues, the discipline assessed was lenient.

The Organization urges that Claimant was unreasonably disciplined in light of his previously unblemished record and 30 years of seniority with the Carrier. Moreover, even if, , Claimant were deserving of some measure of discipline, the assessment of a 30 day suspension violates Carrier's own discipline policy of "Discipline by Record" established on December 1, 1989.

The Carrier established persuasively that Claimant neglected his duty when he failed to make a sufficient effort to contact a responsible Carrier Officer regarding the track condition. Claimant violated Circular No. 1, dated October 24, 1991, which reminds employees that they must notify one of five listed Carrier Officers in the case of a track condition "which warrants a slow order or other action." In view of the potential for serious damage, and danger to the public, some assessment of discipline is clearly warranted. However, the Organization is correct when it points out that Carrier violated its own published discipline policy. The "Discipline by Record" policy operates on a system of demerits. It specifically provides that "not more than sixty demerits will be assessed for any one violation of the rule or other irregularity." Accordingly, Claimant should have been assessed 60 demerits as of October 31, 1993 - "the actual date of occurrence." Further, in accordance with the Discipline by Record policy, the demerits thus assigned shall be reduced "at the rate of five credits for [eacb] three consecutive months of clear record," for the months following October 31, 1993, to the present. Claimant should be compensated for all time lost, if any.

AWARD