UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
(Former Oklahoma-Kansas-Texas Railroad)
Case No. 11
SEMEN OF CLA1M:





Can August 10, 1994, the Claimant was involved in a collision NOth a private vehicle while operating the Carrier's tamper through a road crossing. - A formal investigation was held and it was determined that the Claimant was guilty of violating Carrier Rule 42.6. Subsequently, the Claimant was issued Level 1 discipline which is a letter of reprimand.


the instant claim on his behalf contending that according to the testimony of witnesses to
the accident, as well as the police report, the Claimant did not strike the private vehicle

but rather the private vehicle struck the Claimant's tamper. The Organization contends -

that the discipline assessed to the Claimant is unwarranted since the accident was clearly
not the Claimant's fault. -


This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case and we find that the Carrier has not met its burden of proof that the Claimant was in violation of a rule

justifying his discipline. Therefore, the claim must be sustained. -




The record uz this case reveals that the Claimant was working as a machine operator operating a Carrier tamper through a road crossing when it was struck by a private vehicle on August 29, 1994. A thorough .review of the testimony and other evidence in the file indicates that the operator of the private vehicle never touched her brake, and inay have pulled around another vehicle, a Ford pick-up truck; that was stopped at the intersection prior to the time that she entered ibe grade crossing. There were no skid marks which would have indicated that the driver of the private vehicle had attempted to use her brake. The lights were plashing and the Claimant was utilizing his hom and other safety equipment. The tamper had already stopped at the time of the impact. Given those facts, this Board must find that the Claimant approached the grade
crossing prepared to stop and yielded the right-of-way to the vehicular traffic. The vehicular traffic in this case paid absolutely no attention to the flashing lights, the hom, and even the fact that there was another vehicle stopped in front of her. With those above facts in the record, we find that the Claimant can hardly be -found to have violated Rule

42.6.

It is fundamental that just because that an accident occurs does not necessarily mean that a rule violation happened and that an employee must be disciplined for it Sometimes accidents occur and there is no proven fault on the part of the Claimant. That is the case, here. This Claimant and the Carrier equipment were the victims of an

irresponsible and a reckless driver. It was as unfortunate occurrence but there was no just

cause to issue a Letter of Reprimand to this Claimant.

For all of the above reasons, the claim must be sustained.

Any a un

Claim sustained. The Letter of Reprimand issued to ikie Claimant shall be

removed from his record.

0-a' ~Q~

Carrier Member U


PETER R:'1C~XERS -
Neutral Member




DATED: a~ J _ DATED: Z-~ QG

~.,- `.-