'-:and Nc. -03
 _ =se No. 503
 PUBLIC LAW BOARD ?\'O. 52el
 3ROTHERHOOD'OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS )
 VS. 1 Parties to Dispute
 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY )
 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Your responsibility for failure to comply with applicable rules of the Consolidated Code of operating Rules resulting in derailment of CNW 132616 and BN 247638 in No. 488's train at Burlington Northern Westminster Street Manual Interlocking at approximately 7:25 p.m., Thursday, October 15, 1981 while you were crew members of No. 488's train." FINDINGS Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board =s duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. Claimant Engineer was found responsible in connection with derailment of two (2) cars at a BN interlocking plant. The discipline assessed was ten (i0) days suspension.

The essential facts are that Claimant was proceeding orc
 lunar signal approaching Lne plant when he observed that -
 were on the wrong track. He stopped the train and secured
 permission through the. operator to back up a short distance to
 get pointed in the right direction. His crew then threw a

                                            power switch (with power off) and proceeded. After pulling track the two (2) engines and eleven (i1) cars over a split/derail, two (2) cars were derailed.

The Board has studied the record in this case and we conclude that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that -Claimant had responsibility for the accident. First, the crew was authorized to throw the switch and move as they did. Second, the engines and eleven (11) cars passed over the derail be-fore =t capped. There is no satisfactory explanation of what the crew did or did not do to cause this. In correspondence a Carrier officer alleged that:

 " ....the crew lined the switch off the BN onto the C&NW tracks and overlooked the derail device and the train was forced through until the derailment occurred." A picture of the derail device shows that it was merely a split track. The move was to the trailing point and no forcing was possible. If it had been gapped at the start of the move, Claimant's engine would have derailed and not the twelfth (12) car.
                                            Pc-s J`-383

                                            ra td o - 5D3


      _._ _ -ticn, the tra'_SCrint comains a number of cmiss-lo.^:s,


we cannot determine relevance of what was not re-vided.

      in vievi of the above, the discipline must be set aside.


                          AWARD


      Claim =s sustained.


                          ORDER

The Carrier is ordered to make this Award effective within thirty (30) days from the date shown below.

 ./2' If. /,(-- 61~'Yk,~ ,, z~ "-'o'
 Employee Member Carryeer Membe
 02e-k Z-1)
 Chairman and Ne ral Member

 Dated: -7G, /j~f~

 -3-