Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award 0.3727
Docket loo. -37654
04-3-0--7 7



Joan Parker when ward was rendered.






STATEMENT OF CLAIM:










Form 1 ward . 727
.Page Docket o. -3754
0-3--3-7 7
FINDINGS:


The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds than


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 Juke 21,1934.


This Division' of the Adjustment Board ha~ jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.




Late in the morning on July 2, 2000, the Claimant, a Maintenance ng Foreman with more than 20 years' service, crossed track near P10 in front of a train that was about to stop. The train, which had numerous cars, pulled past the Claimant and stopped. Shortly thereafter, the Claimant, without notifying the train crew, crossed back across the track y crawling between o cars f the train. It took i about ten to 1secns to cross. According to the Claimant, he`~knwthat the train would be stopping long enough to allow i to crossaly.


The Claimant was seen crossing through the train, ache incident s reported to aaeent. Upon questioning, the Claimant admitted that he had crawled throng the train without notifying the crew.



letter dated August 4 the Carrier notified the Claimant of an Investigation
into his responsibility, if any, in connection with his alleged to of the
train crew hen a went between cars on July 2, . y letter date August ,
2000 the Organization the Notice f Investigation as too vague,
and reqnested that the Investigation be canceled. After denying the Organization's
request to cancel the Investigation, the Carrier conducted, an.., Investigation ow
August 11, 00 . In a letter ate September r 8, 2000 the., Carrier notified the
Claimant t e s being place o probation for one year and s in issue a
.30-day record suspension for violating the arrie'intnne y Operating
Form 1 ward . 3727
age 3 Docket N. - 754
04-3®2-3-7

Rule 1.3.1 and Maintenance of Way SafetY ul-13.1.1, which provides in
pertinent part:

hen a crew member is required to go between or work on the end
of equipment, he/she must notify the engineer and all other crew
members who could affect movement of the equipment radio or
hand signal.".
The Organization, appealed the discipline in a letter dated September 2 ,
2000. In response, the Carrier denied the appeal in a certified letter dated
November 7 that was not mailed to the Organization until November 21, 2000®

s threshold matter, the Organization contends that its claim should b .granted because the Carrier failed to mail its denial of the organization's original appeal until more than 0 days after receipt of the appeal, in violation f Rule . The record, however, shoves otherwise. The Carrier's denial letter is date November 7 and the receipt form shows that it was mailed on ' over 21, o04b Because the Carrier received the Organization's appeal on September 27, its mailing of its denial on November 21, 2000 was within the o0-day time limitation,



that the Carrier's Notice of Investigation " ust specify the charges .investigation is being held," the Carrier failed to provide the Claimant it sc
specific notice. Contrary to the Organization's' contention, however, the oar ti
that the notice adequately notified the Claimant that being chit
moving between. cars without notifying the train crew.

the merits, the,. Organization argues that, because te Claimant as
unaware 'of Safety Rule S-1 .1.1, had received no training with rsect the Rule,
and moved safely between the train cars, a should not have been disciplined. h
Board disagrees. Pursuant to Maintenance f Way peratin l1.3.1, the
Claimant s obligated thane copy of, be familiar with, and comply with all
safe, 1, inclu ing Safety ety ~- Rule S-13.1 because the Claimant
admittedly violated Safe l-13.1.1, the, oar t reject t the Organization's
Argument that h"safely" t between the two train cars. The fact that he ile
to otifte train crew that a teas crossing between the car d is actions
Forte 1 Award o® 37272
Pale Docket o. -376
0-3-0-3-7
inherently unsafe., Indeed, his crossing between the cars without notifying the train
crew subjected him to possible serious injury or death.


B, ecord suspension and one-year probation appropriately reflected the seriousness of the use violation and the Claimant's senrity and prior record, the 30-day record suspension and one-year probation were not unduly harsh or excessive. .



      Claim denied:


                        ORDER


This hoard, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an A,arfavorable to the Claimants) not be made.

                      NATIONAL L ADJUSTMENT

                        BOARD y Order of Third Division


ate at Chicago, Illinois, this day of November 4.