PUBLIC LAW BOARD NUMBER 3530

Award Number: 115
Case Number: 115

PARTIES TO DISPUTE

STATEMENT. OF CLAIt

BROTHERHOOD OF'MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES

And

NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Claimant, Edgar,Mahon, Rt. 2 _Box 184, Delbarton, WV 25670 was assesseda 10·dayisuspensi6n'for alleged responsibility of the Switch Gang going beyond their authorized working limits. Claim was filed in accordance with the Railway Labor Act and agreement provisions. Employes request - the 10 day suspens,ion be removed from his record with pay for all lost time with seniqrity and vacation rights unimpaired.

,,

FINDINGS.- - '

.C1aiinant,,,~dnzexe# 'the. Carri;er~'·~S. service,, on April 6 i '.1970

By 1e 'tter..dated ,April S, 19$8,. Claimant was directed to attend a investiga.tion.qn charg2s'that be~was,,responsible fo,r the operation of

Switch Raising Gang beyond its authorized working limits. The investigation''

was postponed and eyenjtually conducted on May 10, 1.988. By letter dated May.

11 1

27, 1988, Claimant was assessed'10 days actual suspension~ba's.ed on evidence.

adduced at the investigation.

The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was ,'_ suspended for just cause under the Agreement; and if not, what should-the

remedy be. ,~
- J5<30 //S

On March 28, 1988, Claimant was assigned as Assistant Foreman in charge
~' of Switch Raising Gang No. 2 at'the Carrier's Williamson, West Virginia

Yard. There is no'dispute that Claimant's. duties included obtaining track ,

and time limits for 'the.Gang._ Claimant obtained authority to,work "down to

the signal at Armour"s"; which he confirmed as "permission to go on to - I'

,

Armour's Prossing,a'nd start this work and come back,east~working."

' About'f0'mnutes`after that, conversation with Dispatcher R. A.

Saunders, Saunders notified Chief Dispatcher'A. S. Pad is that he had-red.

.

' ,

signals west of the'signAl at Atmour"s Crossing --,a place no 'gang was

authorized to work. On investigation, the gang turned out to be Claimant's.

At the investigation,;Cfaimant.admitGed that his gang was in this area . .. ..

The signal at Armour's has been .in its current location since November . _ - .,

15, 1983. Claimant had been a track patrol foreman in the area of Armour's

Crossing control point for a period of 5 months subsequent to,November 15, '~I^~, '.~iyi~,i',;

1983. r -

i ' n n i
The position of the Carrier is,.that Claimant was sdsp'anded for just .',.,.;~,·)·~
cause under the Agreement. The Carrier contends that Claimant's gang was -
working in an unprotected area. The Carrier further contends that despite '-

the·responsibility Saunders might have for confirming the location of ,.',
Claimant's gang, Claimant was responsible for his gang's working beyond its
authorized limit. The Carrier notes that Claimant was familiar with the

area, knew or should have known of the relocation of the signal and that he. I
was qualified to obtain track permits. The Carrier maintains that the
discipline is commensurate with the offense and is, in fact, quite lenient
considering the danger in which Claimant's gang was ,p laced by. Claimant's

actions.

The position of the organization is that Claimant was suspended without

just cause. The Organization contends that Saunders,was responsible for any deviations between Claimant's what he believed were his instructions. The Organization maintains that Claimant properly called in his request for protection in the work area to which he was moving and that all he did was to do what he said he was going to do. Any subsequent mislocation of the . gang was the responsibility of the dispatcher and therefore, not Claimant's,. The Organization further contends that the discipline imposed was excessive.

After review of the entire record, the Board finds that Claimant's suspension was for just cause under the Agreement.

The Carrier has satisfied its burden of proof in this case. It has established that'substantive credible evidence exists in the record to show that Claimant"s gang was workidg·beyottd its authorized working limits. Further, Claimant knew, or should have known, where his gang had been authorized to,work and.how to arrange that with the dispatcher. The responsibility for failure to be in the proper place must be Claimant's, although the dispatcher may be responsible in some measure for.the gang's loca'tion.v. 'It':.i,s ,we1.~ settled that, the fact 'that one'·en1p,loyee~ is responsible' for ,a violatfbnor offense does'noErelieve~other employees of their
responsibility. Therefore, basedon the facts developed in the record, the
Board finds there was,adequate basis `for the' discipli'ne%

imposed. The

Carrier acted without arbitrariness, caprice or discrimination.
AWARD

Claim denied.

Neutr ember

,

Carrier Member

Organization Member