1. That the Carrier now rescinds their decision and expunge aff discipline, and transcripts and pay for all wag* loss as a result of an Investigation held at 10:00 a.m., on June 16, 2001 continuing forward and/or otherwise made whole, because the Canter did not introduce substantial, credible evidence that proved that the Claimant violated the rules enumerated in their decision, and even if the Claimant violated the rules enumerated In the decision, a record suspension is extreme and harsh discipline under the circumstances.
3, That the Canter violated the Agreement particularly but not limited to Rule 13 and Appendix 11, because the Carrier did not introduce substantial, credible evidence that proved the Claimant violated the rule: enumerated in their decision.
On April 26, 2001, a train entered the Form 8 protected territory bout receiving authorization from the Foramen. fortunately, Claimant board firs whistles of the approaching train and made sure the ballast machine adjunct was riot fouling the track on which r rogue train was traveling.
An Investigation was established. Claimant was found culpable for the charges assessed and was disciplined accordingly.
During the Investigation, It was satabilshsd that even though the train crew had rocslved a train order concerning the track warrant, they nevertheless violated the Farm B territory without receiving authority to do so. It also developed, however, that the #RsdY*baw rd was placed only on are end of the Form 8 territory. There was no Rsd Yellow Board placed on the rids from which the train approached the work area. Testimony was to the effect that there existed another Form 8 track protection warrant and the appropriate Warning Boards wars used for that protected territory leaving Claimant only half the Boards he required. The track warrant became sflbcdrre at 10:00 ant. the rogue train entered the Form B territory about 11:42 am, without permission of Claimant
The, letter at charges stated Claimant allegedly failed to tarnish Information concerning tfu3 westbound train entering the Form #3 limits without authority and tailed to display the flags for Form B limits. The discipline letter alluded only to failure to display flags for Form B limits.
On Page 5, near the bottom and continuing an the top of page a of the Investigation, the question by !ho Presiding Officer of the istoadmaster went, as follows:
To this Board than, it to r that utiii>trtip track protected by Farm 8 before positioning the protective Red-Yellow Board has bean sanctioned by the Carrier In prior instances and was sanctioned in this instant:.
This practice should have bean hatted by a bulletin or notice to all concerned, rather than using the discipline process as a way to halt the practice.
Since Claimant was not disciplined far failure to notify anyone Immediately of such flagrant violation that occurred when the train entered Form 8 territory without authority, fast only for his failure plats the Red-Ysibw Board, this Board finds that the charges have not been established, particularly when such occurrences In the pant have been sanctioned by management
If Claimant has last any time because of this matter, he is to be compensated therefore in accordance with the procedures on the property.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute Identified shave, hereby orders that
A"rd No. 1 -7 3
Case, No. In
