Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties heroin are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Partiss to this dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon.
Claimant received a letter from the Carrier dated November 2, 2000, advising him of an Investigation to determine his responsibility, If any, with the alleged violation of Rule 6.3.1, Track Occupancy, when he allegedly occupied the main track andlor siding without authority between switches at Tangier, Oklahoma, at approximately 1015 hours
Page 2 Award No. 1850on Monday, October 30, 2000, while assigned as a Machine Operator on the Afnarl110 Division.
The Investigation was convened November 29, 2000, after which Claimant was assessed a record suspension of 30 days.
There exists no controversy. Claimant did exceed his tack authority by going beyond the limits the Dispatcher had set. Claimant's only defense was that he was new to the territory so he blindly followed the Lead Machine Operator who stated ire was familiar with the territory. There was no conference between the three Machine Operators to discuss the train order or the movement of the squlpment Claimant did copy the train order although the Dispatcher sought only the Lead Operator's acknowledgement
Claimant has been with the Carrier since April, 1977, and has only one recorded disciplinary mark on his record. Ordinarily that would be considered as a mitigating circumstance, but thin orders are fits IIMblood of the operating system and any failure to adhere thereto can and have led to disastrous results, even to fatalities. Claimant, with all his years, should have been twice as cautious when moving Irt unknown territory rather than blindly follow another. Claimant readily admitted he knew he was responsible for himself. Claimant should have requested a conference with the Lead Machine Operator, even M the Lead Machine Operator was careless and did not request a conhrence.
The Carrier has sufficient evidence of Claimant's culpability for the charges assessed. Even though Claimant has a relatively clean disciplinary sheet for his 23 years service, the seriousness of not following train orders cannot be mitigated.
Rick B. WOW% Labor Member