(Bmdrerhoad of fMta rim nca of Way EmpkWas
FMM~1E$ T t3 DIS~·
(The Oursngbon Northern Santa Fe Railroad (Former
(ATBF Railway Company)

HAMMERTOE CLAIM:

      1. The carder violated the Agreetnent when Claimant Wit Powell was

          given a Level S Thirty (!0j Day Record SOuspS-1l1on wUh * twelve (1Zi

          month review period, when the carrier ford the CIn

          violation of t~atntsnincW of Wail Opt Ruts 6.61. The Claimant

          was Issued excess" dine as a result of an accident while in

          charge of a rah detector test vehicle. The Chad many tasks

          on the date of the incident, which could lave caused the vehicles to

          collide. The Claimant should be paid any Ions of pay conwnenranp

          July 22, 3008 iced and or otlwrwiss, made whole, and the

          discipline should be removed from his record.

      2. As a consequence of the violation and to in part 1 the Carrier

=shoR I~M1'Mdl~il~ correct the Clakrarnt's hipline records and malls nt whole tbr all t)ms lost. FINDIIIGS

Upon the whole record and ail the evideru*, the Board finds the! the pwom heroin are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Re" Labor Act, as amended. Further, the Goarrd Is duly constiafd by Agreement, has won of the Parties and of the subject matter, and the Parties to this dispute wore, given due, notice of the hearing thereon.

On Juror 17, 20011, Carrier wrote Claimant acrd advised an Invoudgation was being convened:

      "...to ascertain the tbas and determine your rm<porrsir, if any, in

      connection with your alhrged failure to use radio or hand stlprraht to notify

      the operator of the following vehicle when slowing or stopping at 1AP 870.8

Fags 2 PLB NO. 5850 Award N°. -35-6'
Case No. 355

      at Justin, Texas, on the Fort Worth Subdivision at approxin-'sly 1015


      hours on July 222008 "

Follovring the inveson, the Carrier bets It had tumished sufficient evidence of Claimant's culpability for the charges, assessed Clahnant a 3o-duty record suspension with a 12-month rovr porlod. Other than Cla*nan#'s ~dance at tine investigation, the was not suspended any part of the Sit days.

Claimant was the pilot; the employee in charge of i rail detector movement across carrier's rails. His obligation was to secure track and tins, protection while traversing the property. The entire unit moved and stopped in accorthrnce with his command.

Trailing the detector wags a hybrid truck (both rail and road aOpab1iklmr~ The SO* called chase vehicle was to sWp and Inspect any rail the detector mcoxded as being tivo.

The Rule governing this type of operation states a trailing unit must keep at least 340 feet clearance between urdta; however, there are Instances when trey ors to bunch up close, i.e., such as at crossings.

The rail detector stopped an! the chess or second car nrnnrned the detector: The operator of the second car confessed fully that he thought the pilot was securing orders from the Dispatcher, he dropped his pen on the floor and M reaching for h !took his eyes oft the detector car. While bending over to got his pen, the trtick rammed to detector. As stated before, the operator of the second car fully confessed his negligence.

The Investigation canters around Cialmw Ys alleged negligence in not coring via radio or on the ground hand signals when he stopped. The vehicles had bunched just prior to this Incident. The detector car mowed only T'0 toe' when It stopped again.

Pates 3 PLB NO. 5850 Award No. 3 5-5
Case No. 355

Claimant slid not convey his intent to stop via the radio or hard signals. Claimant contends hey had a reed light on the rear of the detecWr as though hart was auf'bclent to advise the truck driver to stop hire movement,
After reviewing the transcript and rs""g the Rules Cdr oitad as having been violated, this Board is convinced that the Rules are intended to pr~ all concerned sand even in instances such as this, it Mierwed, this accident would not have occurred. The claim will be denied.

                        A1~AR D_


      Claim denied.


                        O$DigR


      This BOard, acorsideration of the dispute kk4WW above, hereby order's t

an award favorable to the ClaimaM(s) not be nude.
Robert L. Hicks, Chairman & Neutral Member
"' & //,
David D. Tanner. For, fhe Emnili Q~Ghron, For the r
Dated: