On January 13, 2 001 Engineer J. 3. Tar,-is (("Claimant") was working as the Engineer on yard engine Job 8601 on duty at 7:3 0 a.-1. ·= Roper`!-and in Salt Lake City Terminal. At approximately 1:45 p.m., the Claimant's crew coupled ;-to a cut of 24 coal cars in Track 3 and pulled out the 10 Lead Track toward the Break L:p `ard Lead at 10 miles per hour. A coal train had departed about 5 minutes prior to the move from Track 9 and lined the switches for their move, including the 10 Lead switch onto the Break Up Yard Lead. in the meantime, the LJI44 was also pulling down the Break Up Yard Lead to depart on a :^p :e 1elper. Utah. Each crew's vision of the other crew was impaired by cars an the Rip Track :ecat:d ''e^.veen :hem and the conflicting movement did not become apparent until then were oniv a fd.v yards apart. Subsequent testimony established ::.at the Conductor of the LJ1 4-1 was reboarding after lining
applied the locomotive brakes then placed locomotive brakes into emergency. The brakes on the cars were not cut-in and the Yard movement struck the Local on the front end of the second locomotive of the consist, also striking the tir st unit, causing derailment and damage but no injuries.
Based on a pre l iminary on-site; nves tigation, local Carrier officers exonerated the LJ144 crew and held Claimant's crew responsible for not stopping his train short of the collision. Even though the evidence eventually placed in the record at the formal hearing and investigation plainly demonstrates that the LJ1 -IS cre·.v :vas :n fact solely responsible for the incident, Carrier nonetheless sustained the charge a=ainst Clairrant and assessed ais record with a L avei 1 Upgrade discipline.
We must reverse that action becal.:se :he indisputable record evidence shows that Train