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

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

At the time off their discipline, the Claimants were assigned to System Signal Construction Gang 7V25, with headquarters in Motels Line of Road. On or about October 21, 2003, the Claimants were working on the Main Line Subdivision at milepost 170.7 between Peytonia and Montfort Stations near the Carrier's Nashville, Tennessee, Terminal. Claimant Price was the Lead Signalman. On the date in question, he held a 704 authority ffor the gang to occupy mainline track in order to dig in new track wires. At approximately 11:40 A.M. Claimant Price was operating a backhoe that inadvertently snagged cable from the circuit controller. Two cable wires were broken and two pulled loose from their terminals. The gang spliced the broken wires and reconnected the wires that had pulled loose from their terminals. Claimant Price then released his 704 track authority to the Train Dispatcher.

Shortly after the repair was made and the track authority released, northbound train Q 526-21 passed, received and reported a false proceed signal that erroneously indicated the next two blocks were clear, when in fact they were not. In fact, another train occupied the second block ahead. Upon inspecting the location of the gang's repairs, the General Supervisor found that the track polarity in the wires had been swapped. He and Lead Signalman Price corrected the problem, and the signal checked out properly to be returned to service.

By letter of October 25, 2003 all five members of Signal Force 7V25 were notified to appear for an Investigation regarding their

". . . responsibility, if any, in connection with [their] failure to make the proper operational checks after splicing and re-connecting a cable to a derail circuit controller improperly at or near M.P. 170.8 on the Mainline Subdivision. These improper connections resulted in a Critical Rule violation which allowed train Q526-21 to receive a false proceed aspect on the 1722 Northbound Intermediate Signal on October 21, 2003 on or about 1225 hours ....

A careful review of the record indicates that the Claimants received a fair Hearing and convinces the Board that with respect to the discipline assessed Garret, Howard and Price - the Lead Signalman and the two employees working directly with him on the derail circuit controller - was reasonable in the circumstances, particularly considering the potential for damage to Carrier property and personal injury. However, we note that Claimants Blady and Mattingly were not involved in the failure of the circuit controller during the time in question. Claimant Blady was working away from the location of the circuit controller, and Signal Foreman Mattingly, who was otherwise engaged, testified that he asked the remaining three Claimants if the circuit had been properly checked out and was told that it had been. Accordingly, Blady was not in a position to observe whether it was working properly or assure that it was properly checked to ascertain that fact, and Mattingly reasonably relied on the word of his Lead Signalman that everything was in working order.

Under those circumstances and in light of the findings of Third Division Awards 23855 (Referee Scheinman) and 21240 (Referee Eischen) the Board finds that the Claimants were not disciplined in an equitable manner. Such a "broad brush" approach, when two members of the gang are clearly without guilt, cannot be sanctioned. Accordingly we find that Claimants Blady and Mattingly shall have their discipline removed, shall be made whole for time lost, and shall have their records cleared of the charges.

AWARD