Engineer R. B. Gaylord (Clai.-iiant) Locomotive Engineer on the CiVTR-14, an eastbound train operating between Los Angeles and Yermo, California on February 15, 1995. This eastward train was routed to the Southern Pacific's (SP) Colton terminal, where it wouidthen be diverted onto the Santa Fe (_ATSF) at "Santa Fe Interlocking-West Colton". The area in question was at the time used by SP, UP and A T SF and was located at approximately ivt-P 538.6 on the former SP main line at its West Colton, California terninal.
It is not disputed that Claimant stopped has train for absolute signal displaying stop on SP's main lire short of the interlock:n2 ii:--nits and apparently informed the ATSF dispatcher of his whereabouts. Conductor M ayes then contacted the SP dispatcher who notified the ATSF lisp atcher
PLl3 tit. 4q50 AWARD NO. 97 NMB CASE NO. 97 UNION CASE N0. 07175D COMPANY CASE NO. 9504081 that he wanted to send Claimant's train over and then have Conductor Mayes authorization to proceed. The transcribed tapes of the SP dispatcher conversations with his counterpart at ATSF and with Conductor Mayes read in pertinent as follows:
After receiving this authorization to proceed, Claimant passed through the red absolute signal at which he was stopped on main line ~`Z onto and proceeded on main line nl in expectation of clearing up on the interchange and being diverted onto the ATSF. While moving through the interchange on main line 7i he encountered another red absolute signal but did not stop because he assumed he had been given authority to move straight through the irate: oc. rag amts onto t. e- 1-. The route was not properly lined for Claimant's movement and the lead unit and one set of trucks of the second unit derailed at the facinS point switch just past the crossover, even though the crew would later testify that they had observed ail switches properly lined for their movement. Another crew was used to separate the remaining portion of the train away from the derailed locomotives and Claimant and Conductor Mayes were allowed to continue on to Yermo and tied up.
After obtaining rest, the crew was informed they were being withheld from service pending formal investigation and were subsequently given Notice of Investigation dated February 16, 1995, reading in part:
Following the heating, Claimant was found culpable as charged and assessed a UPGRADE Level 4, a 30-day suspension without pay.
A careful review of the evidentiary record leaves this Board persuaded that the discipline must be rescinded. In our considered Judgement. prrrtary responsibility for the conlfttsion resulting
" PCs No. 445D
Moreover, any error in understanding was compounded by the general ignorance of all concerned as to whether the trackage on which the second red absolute was situated was under the control of the SP dispatcher or the A TSF dispatcher. We find it illuminating that, following this incident, SP dispatchers began to give much more detailed and specinc authorization to trains entering from the SP main line track Tl to the SP transfer at Rest Colton.
Based on all of the foregoLra, we conclude that Claimant reasonably understood that the SP dispatcherhad authorized 'rim to pass both absolute signals and move through the interlocking limits
ec.e No. 4qso AWARD N0. 97' NMB CASE NO. 97 UNION CASE NO. 07175D COMPANY CASE NO. 9504081 to the ATSF. Carrier erred in faulting him for passing the second red absolute signal holding him responsible for the derailment within the interlocking limits on the SP Transfer on February 15, 1995. Accordingly, the Level 4 L`PGRaDE discipline must be removed from his record and he must be made whole for resultant monetary loss. In that connection, Carrier must make Claimant whole for the six (6) days held out of service pending investigation as well as the thirty (30) days' suspension without pay.