"Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the CSX Transportation Company (B&O):
Claim on behalf of M. R. Efaw for reinstatement to service with his record cleared and with compensation for all time and benefits lost as a result of his dismissal following an investigation held on January 28,1997, account Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, particularly Rule 50, when it did not provide the Claimant with a fair and impartial investigation, and assessed harsh and excessive discipline against him. Carrier's File No. 15 (97-67). BRS File Case No. 10481-B&O."
On January 24, 1997, the Claimant was notified to appear for a formal Investigation into the charges of violating CSX Operating Rules and failing to properly perform his work safely on January 20, 1997.
On February 24, 1997, the Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty as charged and consequently, dismissed from the Carrier's service.
On March 27,1997, the Organization appealed the dismissal contending that the Claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial Hearing, because the Carrier refused the Claimant the right to question his accusers. Furthermore, the Organization pointed out that Train No. 8138 did not enter the Claimant's territory on January 20, 1997. On May 22, 1997, the Carrier denied the appeal.
The Board reviewed the procedural arguments raised by the Organization, and although the Hearing was less than perfect, we believe that the Claimant's rights were protected. Consequently, the Organization's procedural arguments are rejected by the Board.
With respect to the substantive issue, the Board reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of violating Carrier Rules and procedures when he gave the Signal Foreman permission to work on switches and then released trains onto the track. The Claimant was the employee in charge, and he was responsible for ensuring that the track was safe for train movement. The Claimant failed to do this when he released Train No. 8138 into the area. The Claimant was negligent by not ensuring that the track was safe before releasing the train.
Once the Board has determined that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. The Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its action to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Given the lengthy seniority of the Claimant and his previous disciplinary record, the Board must find that the Carrier acted unreasonably and arbitrarily when it terminated his employment. The principles of progressive discipline require that the Claimant be given a lengthy suspension in response to this wrongdoing on his part. In addition, the Claimant shall be required to re-qualify in his former position through a __,y