PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE :

 L~,UON PACIFIC RAILROAD CO~IP_~.\'~-
 (Wester-n Ragior)
 -a..d
 BROTHERHOOD OF LOCO==V__= -NGLNEERS

 STATEIVIENT OF CLAIM :

OPINION OF BOARD : Engineer D. 7%-. Dousett ("Claimant") was called as engineer and Conductor VI. .A. Garrish was called zs :lie other member of the crew to operate the CSVLX-25, a loaded coal train, from Las Vegas to Y==o (a run of 171 miles). The train, which had 100 loads with no empties, was 12,885 tons arid 5;631 feet lone and equipped with Distributed Power Units (DPQ; i.e., a second set of locomotives was ,coupled back in the train but was operated by the locomotive engineer on the lead locomotive. '?here is no classroom instruction for DPU operations on IJPRR, thus ail training for lo como tive :=T eer s who are not instructors is "on the job" training. Because Claimant had not previously operated a DPU tralil and had no experience with DPU operations, Engine-_r D. J. Maurer, a DPL- stnictor engineer was also caked for that trip, to

!.i u

                                                AWARD NO. 121 NMB CASE NO. 121

        UNION CASE NO. 1127153 COMPANY CASE NO. 98027 accompany Claimant and familiarize him with the operation of DPU equipment.

      Claimant and crew reported early for duty and after Conductor Garrish secured the needed paperwork for the train, track warrants, track bulletins, Form B, etc. , a job briefing was held and they started their road trip. It is not disputed, however, that the on-duty clerk at Las Vegas gave Conductor Garrish an incomplete set of train orders. The track warrant initially issued to the CSVLX-25 was cleared for the proper route (Las Vegas to Yermo) but contained only track bulletins for trains traveling territories east of Las Vegas. That Track Warrant. No. 0079, with four (:1) attached track bulletins, was issued by the Dispatcher at 002 7 on January 28, 1995.

      Neither ConductorGarrishnorClaimantDousettpickeduponthefactthattheyweremissing some of the track bulletins listed in the Track Warrant 0079. As a result, they were unaware there was a Form Bin effect beginning at milepost 328.50 and were not specifically looking for those yellow/red boards or the red board. Upon boarding the train, Instructor Maurer bean immediately instructing Engineer Dousett on DPU operations. The train departed Las Vegas at 5:58 a.m., with conditions dark but not stormy, with ascending grade (from between.45% to 1.00%) as the train proceeded west from Las Vegas. As the train proceeded west, it encountered a stop (red) signal at CP 330 and Conductor Garrish performed anon ground roll by inspection of an eastbound CLBSR25. After the eastbound train had proceeded past, the crew received a clear (green) signal at CP330 and proceeded west.

      Engineeraurer continued to ins uc t EnsneerDousett on DPU open anon while Conductor Garrish watched the rail for any obstructions or other impediments. According to the subsequent testimonv of the crew, Conductor Garr'.sh was making a special effort to be observant because

' pt,B Na . ~t 4s-~

    yu ~~o N'o. 12 ~ Claimant and Engineer' D. J. Maurer were were very focused on the Claimant's DPU instruction. As the train proceeded west, it encountered a stop (red) signal at CP 330 and Conductor Garrish performed an on ground roll by inspection of an east bound CLBSR-25. After the eastbound train had proceeded past, the crew received a clear (green) signal at CP330 and proceeded west. [It is noted that the crew which went on duty at Yc^no at 2110 on January 27 on the eastbound train met by the CSVLX-25 at CPJ30 had all the t<-ack bulletins necessary to traverse the tornitory safely. By comparison, Claimant's crew received Track Warrant 0079 with ten (10) track bulletins listed as attached. but they wer e m act mtssLng six _ ) u ac war-. an s, ' c u i ~ . _ -

    the territory between milepost 328.50 and rr~iiepost 324 Track bulletin 1508-'. had been issued the day before and had an Oh time of 1 53-i :ours on January 27].

    So far as the record shows, si--al aspects were observed and called as Claimant's train

    proceeded west and it is undisputed that th°_ creNv called Foreman Ballard and received authority to

    proceed through the limits of Track Bulletin 14086 (between M.P. 330.25 and M.P. 331.0), even

    though that bulletin was not in effect until 7:00 a.m. It is not disputed that no one in the cab noticed

    the yellow/red boards or the red board as they approached CP326.5,between 0605 and 0620, where

    the missing Form B Track Bulletin had just gone into effect at 6:OOa.m. After the train had passed

    through the Form B area between M.P. 325.5 and M.P. 326.0, Foreman Powell, who was in charge,

    called the Dispatcher. The crew was called and instructed to proceed at restricted speed to Aden

    (CP 321) and get a new track warrant and a f L1 set of the track bulletins. It was not until that time

    that the crew discovered that the warrant tr e,; received when they went on duty was missing six (6)

    track bulletins, including the one for Foreman Powell, i.e., Track Bulletin =15084 between M.P.

    326.0 and M.P. 326.5 in effect beginning at 6:00 a.m.

                                              P~ Q N'o. 44S

                                              O (~wA~D NO-


Based on the foregoing facts, as developed at a properly conducted formal investigation, Carrier exonerated Conductor Garrish but found Claimant culpable of violating General Code of Operating Rules 5.4.3 and 5.4.7, for which a Level 4 (30-day suspension) was imposed. Failure to comply with such critically important safety rules might well have resulted in tragic consequences and Claimant cannot escape all responsibility for the violation. However, this Board is persuaded that a modification of the quantum of discipli-e imposed is warranted by the record evidence. We do so principally because Carrier unreasonably failed to mitigate Claimant's culpability and unreasonably singled out Claimant for the :u 1 measure o tsctp me, w e e ~Onera mg e Conductor who shared in the crew's -_°ailure to notice the missing track bulletins or detect the trackside boards.

Whether the lack of re:lectorized boards invalidated the test or the lack of the use of lights prior to sunrise contributed to the violations is in dispute. But it cannot reasonably be argued that Claimant was solely responsible or that the issuance of an incomplete set of track bulletins by the Dispatcher must be factored in to nvtigate his share of the culpability. Accordingly, because of the unique circumstances presented in this record. we shall reduce the penalty from Level 4 (30 day suspension) to Level 3 (5-day suspension). Ca=er is directed to adjust Claimant's personnel record and to make him whole for the difference in lost pay, provided the latter aspect is possible under controlling FRA and LERB regulations.


a

PLC No. 445D

A(A)Arao M . t'zl


AWARD
1) Claim sustained to the extent indicated in the Opinion.

 2) Carrier shall implement this Award within thirty (30) days of its execution by a majority of the Board.

      Dana Edward Hischen, Chairman


Dated at Spencer, New York on March 19. 2001
Union Member

 Company Member