Case No. 48?'




CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION

VS.

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION (T)

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Please consider this our appeal on behalf
of Brakeman F. B. MacGregor who was assessed
the discipline of 'Dismissed in all capacities
from the service of Consolidated Rail Corpora
tion' for an alleged violation of 'your respon
sibility, if any, in connection with your alle ed
injury on Wednesday, April 2, 1987,-Rule 1304 ?a)
of Conrail Safety Rules S7A may apply' as the
result of an investigation held April 10, 1981
at Selkirk, N.Y. This appeal is to expunge Mr.
MacGregor's record and for compensation for all
lost time including fringe benefits from the time
he was removed from service until such time as he
is restored to service. This appeal is not to
be construed as an appeal for leniency.

FINDINGS: On April 3, 1981, carrier Posted to-claimant athis residence address by certified mail notice to attend an investigation scheduled for April 10 for the followingstated purpose "to develop the facts and determine responsibility, if any, in connection with alleged injury Wednesday, April 2, 1981, at

approximately 2:30AM, at the east end of Selkirk Yard. Rule 1304 (a) of Conrail
Safety Rules S7A may apply. . . "
The cite-d rule reads as follows:
Rule 1304 (a):
"1304. Expect equipment to move on any track
in any direction at any time. Therefore,
employeesmust look in both directions before:
(a) Fouling or crossing track."
PLB N0. 2947
Award No. 3
Page No. 2

On the same day that the notice was posted claimant was also notified of the impending investigation by telephone. The investigation was held as scheduled, and at such investigation claimant and his representative challenged the sufficiency of the notice since claimant had failed to receipt for the certified letter mailed to him. In argument before this board the organization continues to challange the sufficiency of the notice. This challenge is-without merit. The written notice was properly posted, and an employee cannot escape responsibility by simply failing to accept mail. Furthermore, it is certain that claimant understood the purpose of the investigation.
The transcript of such investigation contains clear and convincing proof that claimant was culpable as charged. Claimant failed to keep the proper lookout for the moving engine, and his injury was proximately caused by his own negligence.
Claimant's culpability was established in an investigation which was con- - ducted in an impartial and proper manner. The record is free of substantive or procedural error.
In assessing discipline, carrier considered claimant'.s prior discipline and safety record which reads as follows:
















C










          APR 81983


L