RTBISC IAW BOARD No. 4381: Cases Nos. 41 and 42
BCD OF MAINIEWCE OF WAY EMPICYEES

 AND

 HJRLINGICN NCR= RATTROaD MANY



2. The Claimants shall be reinstated with seniority tninpai raa
 their records shall be cleared of the charges leveled against
 them and they shall be coupansated for all wage loss suffered,
 credited for vacation purposes and afforded all other rights
 and benefits denied them as a result of their ais:_icsal.

On the morning of January 6, 1987, the Claimants, Mr. David E. Cook and Mr. Randy L. Sorkness used a Hi-rail vehicle to travel to inspect a bridge. The vehicle, driven by Mr. Cook, was struck on the main track by Train 7021 at 9:44 A.M. Me vehicle was damaged and the Claimants were injured. Prior to their depart, Mr. Cook had obtained a train lineup from agent operator Ms. Kathy L. Weaver. The lineup showed that Train 7021 was scheduled to leave Glendive, Montana at 6:45 A.M. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Cook as to the location of the train, Ms. Weaver wrote "called 0945" near the entry for Train 7021. Mr. Cook interpreted the "called 0945" to mean that Train 7021 left Glendive at 0945 rather than at 0645. Ms. Weaver intended "called 0945" to mean that Train 7021 was to be called at Forsyth, Montana at 0945. Based upon their interpretation of the "callers 0945" entry, the Claimants believed they had sufficient time to inspect the bridge before the arrival of Train 7021.

 A number of procedural issues have been raised by the Organization. First, we find that the notice of investigation was sufficiently specific as to the charges to permit the Claimants and their representatives to prepare defenses. There is no indication: in the record that the Claimant-s ~ prejixiiced by the form or the content of the notice.

 Seand, the contention that the carrier prejudged the case is not substantiated by the record. The engineer of Train 7021 was properly in attendance at the hearing as a witness rather than as a principal. A separate investigation for the train crew, as provided for under their collective bargaining fit, was right and proper. Additionally, we find no improper contact between the investigating officer and a witness,
 ' L(381 - `-(I aidH2- PS2
    7r. William Dahlin. There is no evidence in the record that the investigating officer had prejthis matter. Finally, we find no element of prejudgment in the Carrier's lion to have only the Claimants, and not the train crew, sutmmit to a urinalysis. The claimants, not the train crew, were improperly on the track at the location of the collision. Moreover, at no time prior to or during the hearing did the Claimants contend that the train crew acted Improperly.


    Moving to the merits of this matter, Mr. Cook should have contacted the

    train dispatcher before occupying the main line track. There is m

    dispute that the Claimants did not follow a procedure they knew they were

    required to follow. Ms. Weaver was in error in providing train movement

    information without permission frrm the dispatcher (misconduct for which

    she was subsequently disciplined). Nevertheless, Ms. Weavers mite

    does not relieve the claimants of responsibility for their own

    misconduct. Having improperly gained train movement information, tile

    Claimants assumed they «j the meaning of "called 0945" without

    further clarification. This failure to follow standard procedure and the

    erroneous interpretation of the cryptic "called 0945" resulted in tragic

    consequences for Mr. Cook and 7r. Sorkness. There is substantial

    evidence in the record from which to conclude that the Claimants violated

    Rule No. 1 of the Burlington Northern Safety Hook and Rule 40 of the.

    Rules of Maintenance of Way.


    Mr. Sorkness and Mr. Cook have eighteen (18) and sixteen (16) years of service with the Carrier. Upon consideration of the record of this case and the Claimants years of service, sae believe that discipline has served its purpose. Therefore, Mr. Sorkness and Mr. Cook should be returned to employment with the Carrier, without lack pay but with their service restored.


                          i


    Mr. Sorlaness and Mr. Cook shall be returned to employment with the

    Carrier, without back pay but with their service restored. -


                  Ronald L. Miller

                  Chairman and Neutral Member


Maxima Timharman G. GlOVer
 Carrier Member ticm Member

                Date