Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 35714
Docket No. MW-35752
01-3-99-3-739

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Nancy F. Murphy when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





FINDINGS:

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.
Form 1 Award No. 35714
Page 2 Docket No. MW-35752
01-3-99-3-739

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.




On May 13, 1998, Roadway Equipment Operator N. L. Milner (Claimant) was operating the MP62 (Ohio Crane) on Gang 6903. The Claimant was working in the vicinity of MP 221.49, LaGrande Subdivision, when he struck a vehicle at a public road crossing. As a result of the accident, the Carrier sent the Claimant a Notice of Investigation directing him to appear at the LaGrande Depot on Wednesday, May 27, 1998.







The Organization protested the discipline, contending that the accident that occurred on May 13,1998 "was not Claimant Milner's fault." According to the General Chairman, the Claimant was operating at a slow speed and could have stopped half the distance the track is seen to be clear, however, "The lady stopped, but did not stay stopped at the stop sign and then moved to the crossing and caused the accident."

Form 1 Award No. 35714
Page 3 Docket No. MW-35752


The General Chairman further asserted that because the Carrier eliminated the Crane Helper position, the Claimant did not have anyone available to flag the crossing, which would have prevented the accident from occurring. Finally, the General Chairman maintained that there was only "a minimum amount" of damage to the crane and no mention of damage to the automobile, therefore, no discipline should be assessed.





The Carrier denied the claim, maintaining that the Claimant was afforded a fair and impartial Hearing, and there was sufficient evidence to warrant sustaining the charges brought against him. Given the "serious nature of the proven offense," the assessment of discipline was not unjust, unreasonable, excessive, unwarranted, harsh or arbitrary, according to the Carrier.










Form 1 Award No. 35714
Page 4 Docket No. MW-35752
01-3-99-3-739
*Operators must take into consideration that a greater
distance is required to stop a track car under these
conditions.







The Rules noted above are clear and unambiguous. In pertinent part Rule 42.2.2 states that: "When approaching workman or others on or near the track, reduce speed and, if necessary stop." That Rule also stipulates that when it is raining, "Operators must take into consideration that a greater distance is required to stop a track car under these conditions." Rule 42.6 provides that: "Track cars and on-track must approach all grade crossings prepared to stop, and must yield the right-of-way to vehicular traffic."


At the outset, the Claimant admitted that it had been raining "off and on" throughout the day, but stated that it was "only slightly sprinkling" when the accident occurred. According to the Claimant, he initially slowed to "ten or twelve" m.p.h. to yield the right-of-way. However, when he "thought" the vehicle would remain stationary, he proceeded toward the crossing and was then unable to stop when the vehicle attempted to cross the track. When questioned about his decision to proceed through the crossing, the Claimant admitted that he had "no guarantee that she was going to stay put."


In that connection, when asked if he had made arrangements with anyone to protect the crossing ahead of him, the Claimant stated that he had not. The Claimant went on to explain that:


Form 1 Award No. 35714
Page 5 Docket No. MW-35752


      unfamiliar with the small farmer's crossing. I haven't worked over that area for a long time."


Finally, when asked if he thought a Flagman could have prevented the incident, the Claimant replied: "She could have possibly run over anybody."


The Claimant's failure to properly yield the right-of-way resulted in the crossing accident with the driver of the car being transported to a hospital for emergency medical care. Therefore, in these circumstances, any attempts to mitigate the discipline by discussing the dollar amount of damage to the Ohio Crane or to the private automobile are simply not appropriate.


Based on all of the foregoing, we do not find the Carrier's imposition of Level 3 Discipline harsh or otherwise inappropriate.


                        AWARD


      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                        NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division


                        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of September, 2001.