Docket No. MW 79-114


Parties Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 to and

        Dispute Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Texas and Louisiana Lines)


Statement
 of Claim: 1. Carrier violated the effective Agreement when
 Lafayette Division Bridge Tender Calvin Duncan was
 unjustly dismissed on June 16, 1979.

 2. Claimant Calvin Duncan shall be reinstated to his
 former position with all seniority, vacation and all
 other rights unimpaired, in addition to all
 compensation lost.
 Findings: The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and evidence,
 finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning
 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, that this Board is duly constituted
 by Agreement dated July 19, 1979, that it has jurisdiction of the parties
 and the subject matter, and that the parties were given due notice of
 the hearing held.
    Claimant was advised by his Division Engineer, reading:


        "You are dismissed from the service of Southern Pacific Transportation Company for failure to report damage to bridge at Houma, Louisiana on June 15, 1979 which is in violation of Rule M828 of General Rules and Regulations and Structures of General Notice effective April 1, 1978 of Southern Pacific Transportation Company which reads in part as follows:


        'Rule M828. All cases of serious damage ....must be promptly reported to proper supervisor..."'

Claimant requested and was granted a hearing. It was held on July 17, 1979. Thereafter, Claimant was advised:

        "I have reviewed the transcript of the hearing and this is to advise you that the position as stated in my letter of June 15, 1979 is sustained."

                      _2_ Award No. 23 -.2

                                            y~`~


Claimant was accorded the due process to which entitled under his agreement.
 There was sufficient evidence adduced including Claimant's admissions, to support the conclusion reached by Carrier as to Claimant's culpability. Claimant was negligent in the performance of his duties. The degree of his negligence is typified by Claimant's answer to the question asked concerning the name of boat involved in the collision, "I wasn't aware of no name." He also testified that he failed to.log-the boaC's.'name even when it went back out through the Carrier's open bridge and the highway bridge. Such failure was a direct violation not only of the standard procedure of the Southern Pacific but also a requirement of Maritime laws.
    In the circumstances, the Board finds that the discipline was reasonable.


Award: This claim will be denied.

                                c

M A`. Christie, Employee Member C. B. Goyne, Carz r ember

                    I e~-e~zf~

                  thur T. Van~Wart, Chairman and Neutral Member


                  Issued at Falmouth, Massachusetts, August 1 5, 1980.