Claimant received a 30 day suspension for passing a red signal on June 10, 1995.
The record shows that while operating OLWDA 10, Claimant proceeded through CP 914 in Dallas which caused an alert to Dispatcher B. Christian in Omaha of movement past a red signal.
Claimant testified that the signal was initially a stop but changed to an approach. Tr. 25-26. Claimant was adamant that when he proceeded he had an approach signal (7Y. 32):
Claimant's Conductor, R. D. Peebles corroborated Claimant's version. According to Peebles, the signal initially displayed red and the train came to a stop. Tr. 10-11. The signal then changed to an approach, that change was called out and the train proceeded. Tr. 12.
Subsequent checking of the system by the Carrier showed no malfunction of the signal in question. According to the Carrier, the signal on Number 1 Main Track was an approach. However, Claimant was on Number 2 Main Track. The Carrier contends that Claimant read the wrong signal.
According to Claimant, at the time, there was substantial lightning activity in the area (7Y. 31):
PLB 5943, Award 9
J. P. Hogue
Page 2
See also, Tr. 122, 134 where others in the area described the weather as a "pretty good storm" with ..lightning"
According to Dispatcher Christian, there were signal problems in the area that evening (Tr. 55-56):
... I had trouble the opposite direction from 1 to 2. Well, 1 to the Waxhahachie Sub.
J. T. York, the Conductor with Engineer Warner, testified that Dispatcher Christian inquired where they were in relation to Chalk and that the Dispatcher stated "the signal had dropped out on him ...."
A tape of the Dispatcher Christian's conversation with Engineer Warner shows the Dispatcher stating (7Y. 243-245):
PLB 5943, Award 9
J. P. Hogue
Page 3
The question before us is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to find that Claimant proceeded past a red stop. The burden is on the Carrier to make that showing. That burden has not been met.
Claimant and his Conductor were adamant that they had a red which changed to an approach and they proceeded 'accordingly and therefore did not go past a red signal. The Dispatcher contends that Claimant had a red as indicated on his computer. If that is all this record showed, we would deny the claim. However, the evidence further shows - and the Dispatcher admits - that there were signal problems that evening in the area. According to Dispatcher Christian, another Engineer (Warner) and Conductor (York) at another location in the area Christian was getting false read backs. Given those signal problems, we are not sufficiently persuaded that there were no
similar problems when Claimant proceeded through C P 914 on what Claimant and his Conductor contend was an approach and not a stop. Thus, we find that the Carrier has not shown by substantial evidence that Claimant proceeded through a red stop as charged.
The fact that the signal system was checked out hours later and no problems were found does not change the result. There were problems in the area that evening and we are just not satisfied that the charges against Claimant were not premised on information stemming from the source of those signal problems. 1
The discipline shall be rescinded and Claimant shall be made whole.
The Carrier points us to PLB 2105, Award 192 indicating that Conductor Peebles was dismissed and took a leniency reinstatement. That award doffs not change the result. That short award did not discuss the facts leading up to the discipline, but only addressed a procedural issue concerning the Carrier's overruling of the superintendent's acceptance the Conductor's le niency reinstatement.
In light of the result, the Organization's procedural argument is moot.
PLB 5943, Award 9
J. P. Hogue
Page 4