(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee
PARTi,~Tt~,D18i9U_ T_ E_ :
(The Burlington m Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATBF Ralwwy Company'
STATEMENT OF rtLNM :












Upon the whole rrcord and all the evidence, the Board finds that the parties herein are Caller and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Board Is duty cons 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.









~La No, s~
Page 2 Award No. ~



    concerning your alleged failure to protect won and equipment working

      under your Form B protection on Main Track 2, n MP 633.6 and MP

      634.0 on the Hereford Subdivision of the Kansas Division, when you

      allegedly left the work sits and Instructed Trackman, Jeffrey Hardy, to call

      trains through your Form B 4891 from MP 633.6 to MP 634.0. without

      notttying welders who were working under your track occupancy authority

      on Main 2, while assigned as Foreman on Switch Maintenance Gang, on

      Thursday, November 3, 2005 "


Following the Investigation, Claimant was advised his s®rvicss for the Carrier were terminated.

On Thursday, November 3, 2006, Claimant secured Form B protection between MP 633.5 and MP 634.0 for his crew. Some welders also Intended to work In the ores ClaknanYs crew was working, and they secured protection through Claimant's Form B.

With Form B protection, the train must stop re It orders Form B territory and secure permission to go through from the Supervisor In charge. In this Instance it was Claimant.

About 12:00 noon, Claimant vent to a convenience store for lunch and delegated the train release responsibility to a Rule's qual Assistant. The Assistant asked Claimant if any others were on the multiple group Form B protection and Claimant simpty so Id no, just lot the trains through.

About 12:30 PW tire welders noted a train coming through on the track they were working and scrambled to clear off the track. The employee ro whom Claimant had delegated the authority to permit the trains going through did not know the n were also relying on the Form B protection.

      Claimant has that It s his understanding that the welders did not need any

protection from 12:00 noon to 12:30 PM, and the Weider Forman said no, he only advised
?L6 b. 5'd'~O
Page 3 Award No. ;Lcl1
Case No. 297

he had no n for the loan of the hydraulics from Clalmant'a crew to the welders. He s not taking the welders off the multiple Form a protections.

4t is obvious of the damage to man and equipment ii the welders were without
track pro n.

The Carrier developed sufficient evidence to establish Ctalmsnt's culpability for the charges and did terminate tire services of Claimant.

It would appear them Is a simpl! transaction, passing Form a protection from one to another, but Form B's are one of the main forno of protection. When there Is a briefing and a Forth a Is Involved, everyone at the briefing has to be on the same page, H not they results would be catastrophic.

Regarding the discipline, Claimant In 12 years has had (including this one) four disciplines Imposed and he has one letter of accommodation for giving up his Christmas holidays in 2004, when he worked the 34th and the 25th cleaning up a rallment.

Although the results could have n cams hic, dais ass a cans of misunderstanding In c unlcat3ng. it was not 1 nce or willful. Under the circumstances, Claimant 4s to be retu to service as a Welder only. He is to be disqual as a Foramen.


      Claim sustained In accordance with the Findings.


This Board, after consideration of the dispute Iden above, hereby orders that an award favorable to Me Cia' nt(s) not be made. The Carrier ordered &r make the award effective on or before 30 days following the data the award Is ado
p Lc3 tso. S$~ Page 4

Robert L Hc~ka; Chairman a Neutral Rkniber

David D. Tanner. Labor Member

Dated: (/2l `)a)-7

Inward No, oZ01_1

Cuss N®. 297


Samantha Ropers, cerfl~_ mbsr