Mr. McAleese further testified that he provides his employees daily briefings can how to report multiple work groups, among other items, and explains that these groups must he specifically identified when an employee releases a track w=arrant or track and time. i-le added that management had also conducted numerous stand downs and contcrcnce calls concerning all rules changes. While Mr. McAleese stated that he had nut sat down and personally explained the rule to Claimant, he did not believe: the chatter could lie viewed as a training issue because of the multiple conference calls and conversations with employees as to how to release. tie stated that management had also provided employees with specific examples.

Claimant testified at the investigation that on the day at issue a UP rail gang and a Carrier signal maintainer were working under his responsibility. Fie added that the. ~,ignal maintainer also had his own authority. 'ntese were, he explained, separate work f)ructps, and the actual work was being performed on the Browning Main.

Claimant explained that when there are multiple work groups under his authority°, fie is required to list them can his track and time authority. fie explained that the purpose of that action is to record those groups specifically so it is known that protection must be provided for another group. He stated that he is required to document a beginning tune:

Claimant acknowledged that when he released his authority in the; instant tatter he dies not report to the dispatcher that all of his multiple groups were clear. fie testified that he had about three earlier conversations with the dispatcher that clay. In cane, he stated, he kept the dispatcher updated as to the status of the rail Yang, letting the dispatcher know that that gang would hay=e overstay. In another, Claimant stated, the: dispatcher informed him that trains revere starting to back up and he wanted Claimant to clear the track. Claimant maintained that the dispatcher was aware of .*,rhat he was doing. He added that he physically made sure everone was of the track before releasing, and that he and the dispatcher had an understanding that the limits would be clear when fie ;got ready to release the track.

Claimant acknowledged that he had attended a rules "start up class" in January. tle aura stated that he was "kind of familiar°" with the requirement that he use specific language when he released a track warrant, and "kind of vaguely reember(ed)" that he Eteedcd to do it can track and time.

The Carrier's Policy for Employee Performance Accountability (Pp:PA) provides that an employee involved in a seerious incident, as enumerated in the policy's appendix 3. will receive a 30-day record suspension and may be offered training to correct the underlying behavior. Appendix I3 lists a:; serious violations numerous safety 'infractions. hlrc PIPA also provides for a serious-incident review period of I2w months for employees %x-ho have completed at least five years" service anti who have been injury and diseiplinctrce for that period. Claimant"s record shows no previous discipline.

The Carrier states that a review of radio transmissions from the field to the dispatch center revealed that Claimant violated Carrier safety rules when he did not properly release multiple work groups under his track authority. Rule 2.14.2, the Carrier asserts, requires a specific procedure to be followed when there is more than one work group on the track working under the same time and track authority. As for the Organization's assertion that there had been a change in the rule which was not conveyed to the field, the Carrier notes the testimony of Roadmaster McAleese that the rules are read on the morning conference call and that General Orders regarding rule changes are

Moreover, the Carrier points out, Claimant admitted that he did not report to the dispatcher that all of his multiple groups were clear when he released his authority. Claimant also acknowledged, the Carrier notes, that it is important to document the ending time in such situations to make stare that everyone has cleared the track.

The Carrier asserts that Claimant's admission is sufficient to satisfy its burden of proof, as has been held by various arbitration hoards in this industry. With respect to the penalty, the Carrier argues that the gravity of the instant situation cannot be overstated. The fact that no catastrophe occurred, the Carrier states, does not absolve Claimant of his responsibility to follow rules which are in place to protect the safety of Carrier employees. The potential for a dangerous situation vas present, the Carrier concludes, Lend its determination that Claimant committed a serious rule violation is correct. The Carrier urges that the claim be denied.

The Omanization states that the Carrier disciplined Claimant as the result of a "remote audit,, and this case involves a dispute regarding language commonly used can the track to release authority. The Organization notes that the Carrier failed to provide the recordings of three conversations between Claimant and the dispatcher which took place prior to the cane at issue. The Organization states that these recordings would show that Claimant informed. the dispatcher that all of the employees working with him were clear of the tracks and Claimant was about to release his on-track, authority. The recording that was played at the investigation, the Organization states, shows that there vas no misunderstanding between Claimant and the dispatcher, tmd the Carrier's key witness conceded much.

The Organization stresses that the applicable Carrier rule sloes not mandate that tiny particular language be used between an employee and the dispatcher in this situation; rather, the rule simply requires that there be a clear understanding that all personnel are in the clear sand off the track. The record in this case, the Organization urges, clearly demonstrates the existence of such an understanding.

With respect tea the penalty, the Organization states that even if Claimant had been guilty of a serious infraction, the appropriate method of addressing a performance issue, as opposed to a behavioral problem, is to correct the situation through non-disciplinary rneasun:s such as coaching and counseling, or training. The Organization concludes that

the discipline assessed against Claimant is excessive arid unwarranted, even if the Carrier lead proven the asserted rule violation. 'e Organization requests that the claim be sustained.

serious one, intended. to protect the safety of employees working nn tracks lay requiring specific identification that all multiple work groups are cuff the tracks before authority can be released. This rule is obviously intended to avoid any possibility that, in a general release of authority, a work group might be overlooked. While the Organization is correct that the rule requires no specific language or words be , the rule is quite clear that the field employee must inform the dispatcher that "all multiple work groups" aare clear of the tracks, and the field employee and dispatcher must match the field employee's statement against the authority farm, which lists the multiple work groups, to ensure everything is correct There is no question, as Claimant admitted, that that slid neat happen here. Nor did Claimant ever claim that he provided the dispatcher such information in any cat the earlier discussions they had that day, thus negating the: Organition's contention that he was prejudiced because the transmissions of those

We have

adequate; training on the recently-implemented rule and his conduct should l

tats 585o~ Case No. 39s

Bated this,~' d. of =- ,, 2012.