i'ART11.·~ UN1trN PACIFIC ItAll.Pt)AD t'r);,11'AN!
 'f)i r
 PISPUTE ) I ilitrTIll;RIIUUD JIAINTENA&-'! (rl·' "AY 1QI'1;qEaE:i

 .:TATEw1ENT t)1~ i'1,AIA1: (1) The dinctpltno (1tr clr·m"rrts) assessed Extra Gang 7hfiG Foreman S: ,9:--Sowa For-allogon violation of varlou:; Company rules as indicated in Mfr. P. yt. D;,nno11's letter of - nucumber 4, 11)157,- was arbitrary, capriviouH and unwarranted.

 12. The claimant's record shalL he Lluarud "I .he di"ciplino
 referred Lu in Part 11). - _ -.

 FINDINGS: _This Public Law Board No. 4334 Irud~ that tire partio:; herein ar<· Carrier and 1?mployco within the moaning of the Railway Labor Act, a:; amended, and that this,_Iloard Ira:; ,jurisdiction.

 In this dispute the claimant was notrlind i" att~nd .t turmal invu:,til;ation in Los Angeles, California on Novembwr lt;, 1967 to - determine the responsibility, if any, of the claimant concerningcharges that during the week oC_Octoher 19, 1'.1;17 instructions which he ,vas given by his supervisor to he completed during his supor= visor's vacation were left unattended.

 Pursuant to the investigation the claimant was found guilty of irresponsibility and was assessed thirt·, domoritN fur a violation of General Rules A, I3, D, and 600 as indicated in Safwty, Radio and General Rules for All Employees, Form 7Jt)b, "t fuctive April, 1 !185. -

 1t the outset the Carrier introduced a transcripL of the cl;tirn-ant's personal record. The Union objected, but the Carrier overruled the Objection.

 '''I- Prion al :n contended that the cchnrge. wer~ not prowrse to nature
 ,ind tt,!is in violation of Agreement ftulc_ .ltili:-3. -Th~.~ Union alleges
 !hat t-he Carrier failed to notify th.· claimant which instructions
 he warm given that were not followed, and thus th- Pinion was unable
 to prepare a proper defense. -

 7:. ~. ualcden, Track Supervisor at Los Angal": testified that he__
 w-nt on vacation the week of October lit and gave the claimant a
 list. of instructions which he wanted completed in order while W
 .as on his week's v.cation. He testified that when he returned,
 1hreu of the items which he had instructed the claimant to perform
 bud not teen completed. He testified that hi:, instructions were
 both written and verbal. - --

 The Carrier introduced a copy of thy wrr LLL"n instructions as car rier's Exhibit C. 61r. Uakden testified drat Item N,. I was to


pick up scrap ties and garbage, and this task was not completed. He testified that Item No. 2 was to put mile markers and quarter mile markers out, and this job was out completed. He testified that Item No. 5 was to broom No. 1 'track lletueen yard switches, and this job was not completed.

 Mr. Oakden also testified that Item No. t3 was Lu uurk in the Los __ Angeles 'lard doing clean up of ties, OTM, panels; save rail on panels and put the rail at Spence; stack O'fM out of the way; you need to talk to Lance George on Extension 2378 or regular mobile about clean up and Rollie about where he wants the panels; this needs to be done so NEOSHE can start their work, and such task was not completed.

 Mr. Oakden further testified that Item No. 7 stated that if the fuCel;oing iLemS were completed, the claimant nuednd to go to Walnut and start building yard switches, and this task was not completed.

 Mr. Oakden testified that regarding Item No. 5, brooming of No. 1 Track between yard switches, none of that work was started. He staled it might possibly take two days for the claimnnL's ganl· to complete that task.

 Mr. Oakden testified that all the work he had directed the claimant to have the gang perform could have been completed in the one week - he was away. He testifientthat the c_harges against the claimant were failure to pick up ties and trash, failure to install the toile and quarter mile markers, and failure to broom the track.

 The Union contends that the evidence establishes that the ,jobs thatwere assigned to the claimant were not left unattended but were partially completed. On that basis the Union contends the evidence does not sustain the charge.

 The claimant testified that he did not complete everything on the sheet which listed the assignments, but an honest attempt was made-to complete everything assigned. The claimant testified that he left six ties for plowing and stated they would be considered scrap:

 The claimant testified that they attempted to perform the ,job of putting up the mile and quarter mile markers, hut they had improper posts and he decided to wait until they could get proper posts. He testified that he contacted Mr. Rollie Moods on October 10 and ad-vised him what the problem was, and Mr. Woods told him to hold off until the, could get the right posts.

 In regard to Item No. 5, regarding the brooming of the Track between yards and switches, the claimant testified that he attempted to complete that. job but could not obtain a safe operator for the ballast regulator. The claimant testified that in his judgment it would tale approximately one and one-half hours for an operator to properly broom a track which was slightly over a mile long. He stated- h<· was only at the job site pll-one--day. He testified that he instructed
 his assistant foreman regarding what needed to be done. -

                                          4335

                                          Award No. 1.1 Page 3


The claimant testified that Jim Ilelfrich came by several Limes can
 the 19th and commented that they were doing; 2 fantastic job in Lltr·
 yard. lie also stated that Mr. Grorge came through a couple of
 times, and he liked Lhe way things store going in the yard during
 the week of L)cLober 19 through October 'J'.'.. He stated that. Mr. _.
 r;eorge's instructions would supersede Mr. uakdon's since: Mr.
 George was the project engineer.

 In reference to the instructions to regulate the ballast or broom the ballast in Track No. 1, the claimant stated that, he talked to- Mr. Mechie who advised: "Yes, we knew it was supposed to be done, but there was just no way to get to it with the operators and the machines we had to keep going."

 Ltr. Lance George, Manager of Spocial projects, testified that the ,job of picking up scrap ties and garhaVe, irlontilied as Item No. 1, was not completed, and he saw some trash laying; around. He also stated that Item No. `d, which directed that mile markers and quarter mile: markers be put up, was not completed. He testified that the claimant called him on the morning of the I9lh and Loldhim he flit not have Lbe -quarter or three-quarter signs, tart It(- had the 11:11 I -. signs and the mite marker signs. He stated that he told claimant __ to go ahead and put up the ones he had, and the claimant advisedhim he would do so, but such was not done.

 Mr. George also testified that the brooming of No. 1 Track Involved only one-half mile. He stated that the claimant never came to him and requested an additional operator or any assistance in complotin;~ the job. Mr. George also stated that the gang attempted to do good honest work that week in the yard but did not do enough at the industry.

 Mr. George testified that the tampers and machines were sitting out there because they didn't have a- pump for fuel, and he and Wr.llelfrich were out there at approximately 10:30, and the machines _ had been sitting all morning, and they were ,just standing around and said they were out of fuel and didn't have a pump.

 Mr. George admitted that Mr. Helfrich did not seem 19 be displeased with any of the work which had gone on during the week. He did say, however, that Mr. Helfrich did not see the list of work which was assigned to the claimant. He-stated that the gang did good honest work during that week except for the lack Qf picking up the nine foot poles or letting someone know about that for the mile parker posts, and the fuel shortage deal on the tampers.

 Mr. It. f1. Woods, Manager of Track Maintenance, testified that in his judgment items No. 1, 2, 4 and o should have been completed and Item No. 6 started. He further stated that the claimant "as responsible for having the necessary fuel.
                                            L(355~3


                                            Award No. 1-1


                                            Page -l


The entire transcript and all of the testimony of the witnesses_ including the exhibits submitted by both parties, have been care- - tally studied and considered by the Board. Also all of the conlent-ions made by the Union have been considered.

 It is true that the charge could and probably should have been more precise in setting; forth the exact. aWsigrtt:a nt" ctbich wuro given to tho claimant and wore not performed. The cord "unattended" can be used as well as "completed." However, the evidence fully establishes that the claimant was well aware of what lie wttsassigned to do and what the Carrier contended he had left unattended. On _ that basis the Board will not overrule the decision on the basis that the charge was not precise.

 Thr· Boar(' recognizes 2nd fully apprt?c`i;stes that the claimant. was - very sincere in believieg that he performed the duties well and kept the crew busy. However, the evidence is sufficient for the Carrier to find the claimant did not perform some of the duties which were. assigned to him to be performed during that week. The evidence is also sutticient for the Carrier to find the claimant could have had his gang; perform those dutiuc·s during the time involved.

 The Board further recognizes that some of the deviation was beyond the claimant's control. However, the evidence does establish that the claimant could have performed some of the higher priority dulie.~ and should have had the gang complete those duties during the time involved. After much deliberation it. is the opinion of the Board that the evidence does not ,justify setting aside the decision of the
 Carrier. -

 AWARD: Claim denied.

                                      t


January 29, 1988
 Preston J. Moore, Chairman

                              2' -2 22.-R-

                                Union Member


                              Carrier Member