On April 25, 1996, Robert E. Brandon. (`Claimant") was Engineer of train GEONIVIK-32, a Grain train operatin_ from Elko to Salt Lake City, along with Conductor M. J. Talbot. occurred approximately 6:2-4 PM of April 25, 1996 ,.--hire Claimant was operating GEON?vIK-22. Claimant and Conductor M. J. Talbot were cailed -or sen-ice orieinating from the terminal of Milford, Utah and their tour of dut·: went without incide-.t until after arriving at the final terminal. Claimant stopped his train at Buena Vista for a b^ef :i:-:e before receiving a clear (green) indication at CPC 7-9, following .%hich the train w'as then .-..owed past CPC 781 (Orange Street) and CPC 7S1 (10th Nest), both displaying clear (green) ird:cat:ons. The siTtal located at CPC 7S? (Grants Tower) indicated a : °;low over red i appro c'.-) 1,1-,__ .. ; approached, the train e,;pericnc ed an undesir_°d
The crew was unable to contact the train dispatcher so they advised the Yardmaster at Salt Lake of the situation and made a ·:valking inspection of the train. The Yardmaster dispatched car inspectors to assist with the train and contacted the train dispatcher. The train dispatc'er had a superior train following Claimant.. so he rn ade the decision to bring the other train around Claimant on the No. I main track. In -,he meantime. Conductor Talbot found the train had separated due zo a pulled pin at the fourteenth (1=') car a.-td ··vhile Mr. Talbot went about recoupling the train the Careen inspected the rear portion: of the rain. Completely unaware and uninformed by the train dispatcher or the Y ardmaster that ::=a train dispatcher had changed the route and made arrangements for the other train to precede the GEON1tK-?3, Claimant proceeded into the Salt Lake Yard.
Claimant and his conductor later testified that as they moved again the light at CPC 7S? remained yellow over red, that each ver:ited'oy calling out "high yellow" and that their train was moved on said signal indication. Both cr-=en fitrther testified the next signal located at CPC 7 S= (East Grant Tower), displayed a lunar (rcstnctiag) and the train vvas warded to the location designated by the yardmaster. In the meantime, the train dispatcher had called the S T MET to tell him to cross over around the GEON1·IK-_'?. but neither the train dispatcher nor the yardmaster communicated to Claimant that the train dispatcher was going to take down the light and change the pr°·· iously established route for his train. In order to line the superior train around Claimant's train. :lie train dispatcher had to line the No. 9 power, switch against Claimant's movement, « hich would have char=ed the indication of the \o. 6 _1`_":~! CPC 7 S-) from proceed to stop.
The train dispatcher was not called as a witness at the formal investigation, but the transcription of tapes from DISP 08 shows :hat immediately upon throwing power switch No. 9 the train dispatcher left his desk to take a break. V ken he returned from the break he saw flashing lights on the dispatching computer system. indicatin _ that the No. 6 signal had been over run. Unaware that Claimant's train had preceded the S-ME T into the yard, the train dispatcher initially was not sure whether the signal had been run ;r-eag3 or by what train. However, Manager of Train Operations P. P. Locke ·.i as talking on :::e :e:.=.hone to the Yardmaster just after the signal was over ran and found out about the incider_: ··~:::·a: anyone actually canine to notif·!! him. Mr. Locke arranged through the yard super iscrs :o _:a: a a:e crew held for him to interview.
Conductor Talbot was in the re=_s:e--ocm when NITO Locke first informed him of him of apotential problem involving improper passir^.= of the signal back at CPC 7S= and ClaimantBrandon hadjust completed yarding his train « hen :~_e A -as contacted by Yardmaster Currance regarding the run through signal at CPC 782. Both c:e·,;-:-:.^. w ere withheld from service pending outcome of a hearing, issued Notice of Investigation \ CI dated April 26, 1996 and subsequently found guilty by Carrier of passing a red signal at CPC --S-. Claimant was notified by L-PGR-1DE Form 3, dated May 5, 1996, that because of responsihiH^; :or violating Rule 245Q he was assessed UPGRADE Level 4 Discipline, which requires a ti::y i?,7 day suspension without pay.
The transcript plus exhibits clearly shcv, t:_e dispatcher violated the above by failing to get Claimant's assurance he could comply w::1 s = alb once changed, authorizing a conflicting route of another closely approaching train rte.er=e:,:1:n~ limits and operating the device controlling a switch(s) while GEO\NIK was within ':-:eecltng limits. This failure of communication was compounded in the come-;t of the dndispu:C,-' practice to hold trains at Buena Vista until they can be lined all the way into the yard.
UNION CASE NO. 07156A COMPANY CASE NO. 1008313 least a preponderance of the record evidence, we must conclude that carrier failed to carry its burden of proof in this case.