This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Claimant has been employed by the Carrier since April 23, 1982. At the time of the incident leading to the discipline in question, he was working as an apprentice Track Foreman. On October 28, 1993, the Assistant Roadmaster assigned Claimant to inspect main line track from Social Circle to Lithonia and from Fairle Street through the heavily traveled Hulsey Yard in Atlanta, Georgia, using a hi-rail vehicle. There is no dispute that Claimant was qualified on the Carrier's Operating Rules at the time the incident involved here occurred.
As required by Operating Rule 710 and Atlanta Superintendent's Bulletin No. 3, Claimant obtained track authority from the Yardmaster before entering Hulsey Yard Claimant was given track authority to proceed south on Main Line 1, then switch to Main Line 2 at "Boulevard" and continue south out of the yard. Claimant drove the hirail vehicle south on Main Line 1 beyond Boulevard (he did not recogn and did not switch to Main Line 2 as instructed. A yard crew contacted the Hulsey Yardmaster and advised him that the hi-rail vehicle was directly behind their movement on Main Line 1. Claimant was then instructed by the Yardmaster to back up to Boulevard, pull off the track, and proceed to the Hulsey Yard office.
The next day Claimant was advised he was being held out of service and directed to attend a formal Investigation in connection with the charge that he operated his hirail vehicle b
Following the November 3 Investigation, and by letter dated November 12, 1993, Claimant was found guilty of the charge and assessed a 20 day suspension and a three month disqualification.
The Carrier contends that the testimony presented during the Investigation, including that of the Claimant, proved he operated the hi-rail beyond the authority he obtained from the Yardmaster; violation of track authority is a serious offense requiring substantial discipline; the discipline imposed was appropriate under the circumstances; and the decision was timely rendered nine days after the Investigation was closed.
The Board finds substantial evidence in the record supports the Carrier's finding that the Claimant was guilty of the charges and that the discipline imposed was appropriate. The Board does not find the Organization's procedural arguments persuasive.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.