Claimant was culpable as charged and that the discipline assessed against Claimant was justified.
The Organization filed a claim protesting Carrier's actions and requesting that Carrier pay Claimant for time lost, with vacation and seniority rights unimpaired. The Claim was denied at all levels of appeal on the property, and the Organization then submitted the matter to this Board for resolution.
The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant's suspension was supported by just cause; and if not, what should the remedy be.
A review of the record shows that the crane Claimant was operating on February 12, 1982 had been manufactured in 1953, and that it was equipped with two sets of brakes. One brake consisted of a fiber-lined band that was designed to tighten around a drum attached to the crane's driveline. This brake was operated by a pedal in the operator's cabin, and was intended for use while the crane was moving. The second set of brakes consisted of mechanical brakes similar to those on a flat car. They were operated by means of a brake wheel located on the deck of the crane which, when turned, forced brake shoes against the crane's wheels. These brakes were inteded to be used for tying down the crane when it was at rest. The record also shows that the crane had been converted from gasoline. to diesel power, and that the diesel engine was operated
According to Claimant, the footbrake was only marginally effective and had to be constantly adjusted to provide any stopping power at all. Claimant testified that the "parking" brake was also of little use, since the rigging had been bent so that two of the brake shoes did not contact the crane's wheels. Claimant testified further that the crane was slowed mainly by downshifting the transmission, so that the engine braking would be supplied. According to Claimant, the crane could not be stopped in a short distance in this manner, and downshifting had in any case, been rendered more difficult by the installation of the diesel engine and the jury-rigged hand throttle.
The Organization contends that the collision occurred as a result of the poor condition of the crane. However, Claimant had been operating the crane for quite some time in the same condition that it was in on the day of the collision. While he once informed a Carrier official that the "parking" brake was ineffective, there is no evidence that Claimant ever informed anyone that he considered the crane to be unsafe.
On the day in question, Claimant knew that the Tamper would be operating in the area in which the collision occurred. Since Claimant evidently considered the crane to be safe to operate under the circumstances, it was his
responsibility, in accordance with Carrier's Operating Rules, to operate the crane in such a manner that it could be stopped within one-half the range of vision where visibility is impaired. This Claimant clearly failed to do. This Board is not unmindful of the fact that the crane was hard to stop. This fact does not serve to exonerate Claimant, however, since it was his responsibility to operate the crane in accordance with the Operating Rules once he had taken it out on the line. In view of the danger to crews and equipment involved in a collision of the type that occurred in the instant case, it cannot be held that the thirty-day suspension was excessive or overly harsh.
It is the opinion of this Board that the record contains clear and convincing evidence of Claimant's cupability, and that the discipline imposed was not harsh or excessive under the circumstances. Accordingly, the claim is denied.