The dispute here ,tnVolves an allegation that claiMarit passed a signal displaying stop indication at approximately 1340 On Apri.. 7. 195.
in prgsanLing the dispute td this Board, the organization has drques3 there was a procedural exrcsr in that it -=ritEridS the offiCer wba =aducted the investigation had predetermined claimant~ra guilt when he a112gedly phrased certain questions so as to secure answers he desired rawher than merely aSkinq questions to establish the facts surrounding the incident~
by a Signal Supervisor, however, this witness testified that it was not possibly for the two .nav·ea:ents involved to he accepted at the same time, yet the CAD printout indicates that claimant EW ssed same No. d at least 13 seconds before another unit was permitt.ao by signal No- 14 to enter the aria. If, as the Signal suporvisar iestfied. the 61qC:a:. system would not permit the two movPments to bu accepted at the same time, than Signal rdQ. 14 sirouid have shown a stop aspect when Claimant's unit Passed signal lap. 4. eased upon this information fret=t the Signal Supervisor, there is merit to 1,-he
dr'gwzc presented by the Organization that there is « questionDespite the technical aspect of the CAM pz·:ntDUL and r, light o£ the testmeny above referred ta, the r'eYorcf is barren of any physical evidence to disprove the statement of claimant that he arced correctly when he stopped his movement and then proceeded through a flashing red signal. His testimony is supported in t;he record by the testimony o£ the engineer.
Carrier teas argued before this hoard that it is the d;2ty of t7:e trier of fonts t4 weigh and resolve conflicting testimony, and this Board does not disagree wit: this concept . Here, however, them as no conflict in tastimony--both claimant and his engineer testifiEd it wag d flashing red signal and Carrier has not produced aCiyG'112 who viewed the signal to testify to the c cJntr3ry. Considering the seriousness of this alleged offense, t118 Board is left to wonder why Carrier did not send someone to the location to lcok at the signals to determine i£ ?,hare ;gas a malfunet:e.^._ PC.l3 N~. Sgl~- Ward No. .3
Claimant in this case is an employees with over 25 ;=tars of yen=iat. .and basically he has an excellent retard. As a long te:;n employee, the Board believes his test.imcny shoulr3 have bttA given bra credence than that allowed by the Hearing Offiter. His record sho=as that the only discipline administered during his career was the assessment of 30 demerits in. 1977 for not being available for call, and then a 14 day suspension (Level 4 under UPGRADE) for passing a rod liqht on havtfnber 3= :3'x·1.
where rotylad with the Level 4 discipline assessed in the instant case, which resulted in raising the discipline to Laval 5: that is, permanent di sftissal from. Service, While the UPGRADE Discipline Policy Looks at the discipline assessed dvrinc7 the pracedisag 15 month period, it does not look at or takes into Consideration a long and basic-ally trouble f:'~e carer such as that produced try
After d complete and thorough review o£ the entire record before us, it is Our opinion that Carrier did not prove wirh substantial evidence that G.ia.;Mant was guilty Gf pssai.fstt a signal displaying a stop indication on the data in question, under the circumstances his dismissal freer. se.-Vice cannot he Upheld.
Claim sustained. Carrier is Instructed to comply with this award within 30 4dyg -of the date ;iareaf.