(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former (ATSF Railway Company) §JATEMENT OF CLAIM:










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. Further, the Board is duly constituted by Agreement, has jurisdiction of the
Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute were given due notice of
the hearing thereon.

Claimant works as a Track Supervisor and is responsible to Inspect tracks assigned to him at least once every 30 days. A deralknent occurred on February 13, 2005 (not February 3 as stated In Item 1 of the Statement of Claim), resulting In over $200,000 of damages. An immediate inspection to determine the cause resulted in the finding that a cross-level variation of 3 114 inches existed and was the cause,

Page 2 PLQ /116 Sao Award No.

Since this territory was assigned to Claimant, they cited him for allegedly violating various Rules, and after the Investigation they assessed a 10-day record suspension.


      The following facts were established at the Investigation that:


      1 - The territory here concerned, particularly where the derailment occurred was

      considered as a soft spot.

      2 - Claimant knew this and inspected this section on February 4 and again on February 10, and in each instance the cross-level was the same, 2 TMB inches.

      3 - Heavy rails occurred subsequent to February 10, but prior to the derailment on February 13.

      4 - The Carrier readily admitted that the heavy rain could have caused the crosslevel to change ttom 2 7M8 to 3114.

      5 - Although the track was 10 MPH, heavy loads wen: in the trains that used this track.

No one questioned Claiment's supervisor's findings of the cross-level measurement of 3 114 Inches and since a 3 inch cross-over calls for the Carrier to take the track out of service, It was the cause of the derailment

To this Board, the circumstances of Claimants negligence have not been established. No one has questioned his findings of the 2 7118 croasaevel variance on February 10, thus they cannot say he was negligent when a heavy rain could have caused the variance to go from 2 7118 to 3 114 Inches.


                          AWARD

      Claire sustained.

                          ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimants) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the award efcttve on or before 30 days following the date the award is adopted.


              L4&1 gg4h

              Robert L. icks, Chairman 8 Neutral Member


Rick B. Wehrh, Labor Member William L. Yeck-,-Dahrier4lember
Dated: