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 discipline case concerns three separate Claimants who were involved in the same incident. Claimant Loyd was working as an Acting Foreman and was assessed a ten day deferred suspension for his involvement in the incident that led to his personal injury. Claimants Francis and Powell were working as Signalmen under the direction of Acting Foreman Loyd at the time of the incident here involved and each Signalman was assessed a three day deferred suspension for his involvement in the incident that occurred on May 27, 1998. Each Claimant was properly notified to attend a formal Investigation relative to the incident. Each Claimant was properly represented by the Organization. Each Claimant indicated that he understood the purpose of the Investigation and that he was ready to proceed with the Investigation. Each Claimant testified on his own behalf and was permitted to crosseaamine process rights to which they were entitled. Following completion of the Investigation, each Claimant was properly notified of the discipline assessed for his involvement and responsibility in the incident. Appeals were made by the Organization on each Claimant's behalf and, failing to reach a satisfactory resolution of the dispute, the case has come to this Board for final adjudication.
From the Hearing record, it is apparent that each of the Claimants played an active, participative role in the circumstances which led to the personal injury that was sustained by Claimant Loyd. From the case record, the Board learned that Claimant Loyd has since resigned from the Carrier's service. Therefore, his position in this dispute is moot at best. The Form 1 Award No. 36006
Hearing record contains more than substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Claimants Francis and Powell were less than attentive to what they were doing when Claimant Francis cavalierly rolled a ten-foot section of pipe weighing approximately 100 pounds into a ditch in which Claimants Powell and Loyd were positioned. Such carelessness had the potential for severe injury and should not occur under any circumstances. Clearly the assessment of a three day deferred suspension was extremely lenient in view of the Claimants' acknowledgment that they had not pre-arranged the action.
The Organization's argument relative to an imprecise charge notice and other alleged procedural deficiencies in the Hearing record are not persuasive. The three Claimants' own testimony support the conclusions reached by the Carrier. The measure of "substantial evidence" necessary to support an assessment of discipline has been met by the Carrier. The claims as presented are denied.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.