THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 44460
Docket No. 45528 21-3-NRAB-00003-190441
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Jacalyn J. Zimmerman when award was rendered.
(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (
(CSX Transportation, Inc.
“The Carrier has not met the burden of proof. Without proving that the delay, if any occurred, was the fault of the Claimant's request for a re- crew, the Carrier cannot prove that she violated CSX Operating rule(s)
104.13 and 600.3. The Organization contends that she hasn't.
For the reasons contained herein, the Organization requests that the Claimant's record be expunged of this incident and that she be paid for all time lost, including the aforementioned investigation. ”
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 Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The Claimant, L. Patrick, has been employed by the Carrier since 2007. At the time of the incident, she was working as an Assistant Chief Dispatcher (ACD) at the Carrier’s Jacksonville, Florida Network Operations Center. By letter dated October
31, 2018, the Carrier charged the Claimant to attend an investigation concerning information received that on October 29, 2018, at approximately 2015 hours, while working 2FW, at or near the Network Operations Center, she had failed to call a re- crew in a timely manner, resulting in unnecessary train delay. Following the investigation, the Carrier found the Claimant guilty of the misconduct alleged and assessed her a one-day suspension.
The Carrier alleges that it has met its burden of proving that the Claimant violated Operating Rule 104.1, which requires employees to, “Perform duties in a safe and effective manner that prevents unnecessary delay to customers,” and Rule 600.3, which states that train dispatchers and assistant chief train dispatchers are responsible to, “Direct the movement of trains and on-track equipment in a safe and efficient manner in accordance with rules and special instructions.”
The Carrier contends that its witness, Network Operations Manager Christopher Cannon, demonstrated that the Claimant did not perform her duties in an efficient manner. It points to his testimony the Claimant did not take action to prevent further delay for the Q145 train on October 29, 2018, when she failed to timely call a re-crew. He explained that the Claimant had enough information at 1600 hours on October 29, 2018, when the Q145 went into emergency, to know the train would need a re-crew, or to at least have a crew on standby, when it arrived at Collier. He stated that it was not just that the train had a broken knuckle; this was an unusual occurrence, and it was apparent that the crew would likely be short on hours of service.
Mr. Cannon stated that the delay caused by the failure to request a re-crew could have been avoided had the Claimant performed her duties properly. Mr. Cannon stated that this was the Claimant’s responsibility, and she should have had the re-crew on duty by 20:00, but that did not take place until 22:10.
The Claimant maintained at the investigation that when the train went into emergency because of the broken knuckle, she discussed it with the dispatcher, Brad McKenzie, and he told her that the train still had the ability to make it on time. She stated that they had a further discussion, at which time he told her they would need a re-crew, so she requested permission as required and then followed through with the crew caller.
Following the incident, the Claimant gave the following statement:
Q41528 went into emergency. Brad told me he was going to be close on time, making it to Rocky Mount. Chris Cannon told me I should have fired up a re-crew immediately. Next time, I will.
We agree with the Carrier that the Claimant failed to perform her duties properly, leading to avoidable delay. While she contended, at the investigation, that the dispatcher initially told her the train could make it on time, she made no mention of this in the statement she gave immediately following the investigation, instead stating that the dispatcher told her it would be “close on time” as soon as the train went into emergency. At that point, 1600 hours, she had enough information to know that the train would very likely need a re-crew once it arrived at Collier to avoid further delay. The Claimant did not take action soon enough to prevent the delay, and there were no extenuating circumstances indicating that this delay was not avoidable. The Carrier has met its burden of proving her guilt by substantial evidence.
We see no reason to disturb the penalty deemed appropriate by the Carrier.
Claim denied.
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 10th day of June 2021.