PARTIES) THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
 TO )
 DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EPIPLOYES

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: That the Carrier's decision to disqualify Los AgTe-s'ice on Trackman J. Baca from his position was unjust; That the Carrier now lift the disqualification from Claimant Baca's record as a result of investigation held SepteLiber 12, 1984, reinstate his seniority and pay the difference between the position of Foremar_ and position(s) worked beginning October 25, 1984, continuin& forward and/or otherwise made whole, because the Carrier did not introduce substantial, creditable evidence that proved that the Claimant violated the rules enumerated in their decision, and even if Claim;:nt violated the rules enumerated in the decision, disqualification as a foreman and assistant foreman is extreme and harsh discipline under the circumstances.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1502 finds t::at: tae parties
 ne e n are Carrier and employee within the meaninf, of the Railway
 Labor A-ct, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 in this dispute the claimant was notified to attend ri -oratal invustiation August 24, 1934 in Needles; California. The claiiaant war, caarged with leis alleged failure to assure that Furi~: 'u, Excu,iple 2 Trair. Order had been issued to all trains before beginning work .J=: July 26, 1934; failure to place temporary slow and resume sis;rLa before starting work at Ibis, California on July 26, 1984; faiiurr1 to review his performance as a foreman during July and August, 1734; and place his responsibility, if any, in connection with possible violation of Rules A, C, 10-A, 225, 752-B, 1063, and 1242 of Pales, !·:aintenance of Way and Structures, Form 1015 Standard. Pursuant to the investigation, the claimant was disqualified as foreman anc assistant foreman for violation of all of those rules listed above.

 On July 26, 1984, the claimant was the Foreman of Extra Gang 23. Extra Gang 23 was a switch-laying gang. On that date they were getting ready to put in a 24 cross-over. They were drillin.- the holes for guardrails and getting ready to put the frog in. The gang's assigned hours were 5:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. At approximately 6:00 a.m., while Extra Gang 23 was drilling the holes for the guardrails, 3825 East, Extra East, got through and almost ran into their drill.

 At that time Roadmaster D. D. Jones testified that Extra Gang 23 !.ad not acquired a Form U and did not have temporary slow boards UL). He testified that 3825 East called Foreman Nez wt-Lo was worki:v3 in the same area, who authorized them to come by. He testified that Extra East had ,a 30-mi1e.s low order, else they probably would
 PLB No. 1582

 Award No. 291
 Pa ;e 2

 have hit Extra Gang 23. He testified that there was no Form U nor temporary slow or resume signs to protect Extra Gang 23. The Roadmaster further testified regarding several deficiencies of the claimant during the months of July and August.

 K. A. Swing, Track Supervisor, testified that track supervisors are required to give all foremen under their jurisdiction efficiency test reports monthly. He testified that all foremen are required to carry a copy of the time table in their possession and be familiar with the contents. He stated that the claimant did not know the correct number of his time table. The claimant did not have a lineup of the trains, did not know where the trains were approaching, and consequently could not efficiently or safely perform his work. He further testified that the claimant did not have his pocket time books or diary. He did not have his 2 and 2A's, which are an accounting of his work.

 The claimant testified that he had worked for the Carrier for 11k years. He stated that on the morning 'of July 26 lie had gotten a copy of the train order from the Needles operator and assumed that Extra 3825 East had a train order protecting his gang. Ile conceded that the copy of his train order was not addressed to Extra 3825 East. He admitted that he did not place temporary slow and resume speed signs to cover their work location on that date. Lie admitted that he used Mile Post 691 instead of 591. He testified that he attempted to reach the dispatcher on the morning of July 26,-but could not reach him.

 After reviewins all of the testimony, the Board finds there is no justification for setting the motion aside.

 AWARD: Claim denied.



                          Union Member


                          /vw / ~ · a~lT/~71~4I~ -_


Carrier hlemt,er
 Dated at Chicago, Illinois

 January 14, 1985