UNION CASE NO. PR-BAILEY, C.J.-90

                            COMPANY CASE NO. 9001967


PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE:

 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (WESTERN REGION)

      - and -


BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS

 STATEMENT O? CLAIM:

      Request the expungmen, of 30 days actual suspension of Engineer C. J. Bailey and pay for all lost time.

                    pLB No. 445'0

                AWARD NO. 4 NMB CASE NO.-4

UNION CASE NO. PR-BAILEY, C.J.-90
 COMPANY CASE NO. 9001967

 OPINION OF BOP.RD:
 Engineer C. J. Bailey (Claimant) was disciplined with a 30 day suspension following investigation into a charge that on August 2, 1990 h=_ failed to stop his train short of a red signal and passed that stop signal, allegedly without obtaining permission. The facts of the case are far the most part undisputed.
 The incident -n c.:es=_cn occurred at approximately 11:27 a.m., AuSSSt 2, 1990. °ng-neer Ba-1=y and crew were operating their rea-alai aSSigament, ~..^.e LUCS_-02, a road switcher which services customers between Salt Lake Cit;.l and Provo, Utah. At mile post 752.3 Engineer Bailey observed a CTC signal displaying a stop indication (s-final color was r=d). Engineer Bailey stopped his train at t:.e signal, picked up the microphone to his radio and asked the rear end, "Do we have authority?" After the rear brakeman asked the cenduczOr, who said "yes", he responded by radio to Engineer Bailey indicating they had permission to proceed through the signal. Upon receiving this information, Engineer Bailey operated his train through the red signal.
 It was developed during tae conductor's testimony in the investigation, that he said "yes" to the rear brakeman without actually obtaining permission from tie train dispatcher to proceed through the signal. Both the Conductor and Engineer Bailey were found in v-ol==ion of General Code of Operating Rules A, B, 106, 245(Q) and 3_2(-).

                      . Z'1 1=1 `_^.e


..^= C.^.nd1-Ctor was
                                              pLB tjo. 4q6o

                                            AWARD NO. 4 NMB CASE NO. 4

                            UNION CASE NO. PR-BAILEY, C. J.-90

                            COMPANY CASE NO. 9001967


dismissed from service with the Carrier effective August 2, 1990, but was reinstated on a leniency basis on January 20, 1991, with one of many requirements being that he must attend five (3) days of extensive training on the General code of operating Rules (ADEPT Training).

 Claimant Bailey was _°cund guilty of ''not receiving proper permission" to pass the red signal a_^.d given a choice between a 30-day suspension or two (2) days of classroom instructions, on the General Code of Operating Rules, with emphasis on the rules allegedly violated. He elected against admitting culpah_lity and taking the classroom instruction. Accordingly, by the provisicns of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, he was afforded an investigation with representation and the right to offer his defense on the charges. Following the investigation, at which the above evidence was adduced, Carrier assessed Claimant a 30day actual suspension.

 We have reviewed carefullv this record and conclude that the Claim must be sustained. First, the notice of charged alleged that Claimant failed to stcp his train before massing the red
 signal; but the evidence establishes beyond cavil that he did
 stop and radio for permission, which he received, be-lore proceeding past the signal. Second, Claimant had no way of knowing that the conductor upon whose information he relied
                                                  had


i fact overlooked nol l - -_ C -~=i"her ^a c;rc"_=.s~=nces
                          ALB N 0 . L-1450 AWARD NO. 4 NMB CASE NO.'4 UNION CASE NO. PR-BAILEY, C.J.-90 COMPANY CASE NO. 9001967 4


Claimant cannot be found at fault for not double-checking the information he received by the conductor. He was entitled to rely upon the misrepresentation of his conductor and, in the circumstances presented, Carrier erred in finding that Claimant shared in any way the Conductor's blame for this incident.
                            P1.8 h)0. L/t/SO

                            AWARD NO. 4

                            NMB CASE NO. 4

                            UNION CASE N0. PR-BAILEY, C.J.-90

                            COMPANY CASE NO. 9001967


                            5


                          AWARD


              1. Claim sustained.


              2. Carrier shall implement this decision


      within 30 days of its execution by a majority of the


      Board.


      v


                Dana Edward Eischen, Chairman


        Dated at Ithaca, ?few York on

                                    DEC 0 1 Ml


Union Member Company Member
 Dated at ! '~ l g q Dated at g --'~ .' G~t.~.k3-n.~.
 on on