Claimant, while patrolling, kept his ear to the radio conversations relative to train moventcnts, and over heard a conversation from the train crew that was approaching the area he was patrolling Because the conversation was other than track traffic related, Claimant, suspicious that the crew was approaching his protected area at a speed that would not allow them to stop short of any suspected or obvious track obstruction and to protect himself, movod to a road crossing and pulled into the clear.
The train crew, in clear violation of the Operating Rules, hi-balled it through the protected area. When Claimant asked the crew if they had the order of protection, they stated that they did. but they simply overlooked it.
The train passed Claimant at 1050 hour. The train crew tied up at 1150 hours, and Claimant reported the violation at 1350 hours. The train crew did not report the violation.
Claimant was cited for an Investigation and following same, was assessed a 30 day actual suspension from service. The assessment was because Claimant did not "promptly" report the violation. In the minds of his Supervisor, this should have been reported instantly after the incident so that the Carrier could take action in checking out the well-being of the train crew, but since Claimant did not report the incident before the train crew tied up, that opportunity was lost.
Claimant's defense was that after the incident occurred, he was somewhat rattled, but he believed he had the obligation to patrol the track before the Amtrak train which was due shortly, and that he further believed the Carrier would have had more than ample time to deal with the train crew if he reported it at his first opportunity following the completion of his patrol. Claimant stated that at his first opportunity, after patrolling the track ahead of the Amtrak train, he did report the incident,
:6Claimant also stated he was unaware of the Rules governing Carrier's responsibility to react instantly following violations of this sort.
It is the opinion of this Board that Claimant now knows that such incidents must be reported instantly The importance of adherence to the Operating Rules pertaining to safety of the employees, the equipment and Carrier's property cannot be over emphasized. The Carrier must instantly respond to any reported violations to find cause and to take whatever corrective action deemed necessary. But in this instance, it is the opinion of the. Board that the discipline assessed was harsh and too extreme under the circumstances. If Claimant hadn't reported the incident, would anyone have been the wiser? Neither the Engineer nor the Conductor reported the violations, yet when Claimant does report, just three hours after the occurrence, he is disciplined for not reporting it sooner. Under these circumstances, and without any intent to minimize the importance of adherence to the Operating Rules, based solely upon the facts in this case, it is the opinion of this Board that a cautionary letter stressing the importance of reporting ~.nolations instantly would have been sufficient. The discipline of 30 days and the corresponding entry of facts are to be removed from Claimant's record. He is to be compensated for all time lost as provided in the Agreement.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.