Parties to Dispute
 Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way )
 Employees )
 vs ) Case 26/Award 26
 Burlington Northern Santa Fe )
 Statement of Claim

2. The discipline of a six (6) month suspension should be set aside and the Claimant should be made whole for all lost wages and benefits. Background The Claimant was advised on March 19, 2001 to attend an investigation in order to determine facts and place responsibility, if any, in connection with his allegedly occupying a track without proper authority on the date of March 14, 2001. The Claimant was working on the Carrier's Sand Hills Subdivision at approximately 3:00 PM on the date in question when he allegedly occupied track without authority. The Claimant was also charged with failure to report a rule violation to the supervisor while he held assignment as a track inspector. When this alleged incident occurred with Claimant's headquarters were at Hyannis, Nebraska.
 ~L 1~1 Q - ~~d~ /4wcelP /ua. ;2(.








The Claimant to this case held assignment as track inspector on March 14, 2001.
 He was working the first shift from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM. The record shows that the
 Claimant was granted authority by the dispatcher to occupy track No. 2 shortly before
 3:00 PM. The authority was to last about 20 minutes until 3:20 PM. The authorization
11'L1111u1~1 authorization
over Mile Post 273.9 on the Sand Hills' Sub-Division to a switch which was located at Mullen, Nebraska. l Shortly after 3:00 PM, however, it is alleged that the Claimant called the dispatcher and requested to be released from authorization No. 10357. The dispatcher also granted this request. According to the record the section foreman then realized that the Claimant had released main track No. 2 while it was still occupied. According to

 I In the Carrier's Submission to this case the MP location is referenced, at one point, as Mile Post 237.9. This is

3 testimony by the foreman at the investigation he brought this to the Claimant's attention. Thereafter the Claimant again contacted the dispatcher and by receipt of authorization No. 10382 the main track between the two points of MP 273.9 and the switch at Mullen was again granted.
 At the time of the incident the Claimant was running the rail detector and his job among other things was to get authority to protect the detector and the equipment of the
LVUU ~VLVLLLWIY JV WJW ~41V WV JL(AW.Y 011111"111 uQY111V V. L ~lU XL.pau.7mau~ LiGCuuu.
 Testimony by the road master of the Sand Hills Subdivision at the investigation with headquarters at Alliance, Nebraska, under whose authority the Claimant was working, is that on the date of March 14, 2001 it came to his attention by the chief dispatcher that the main track No. 2 had been unprotected for a short period of time because of actions by the Claimant.2 He was advised of this about 4:00 PM. This was approximately an hour after the incident in question allegedly took place. A review of the MW Authority to Occupy Track on that Sub-Division by the Board, attached to the

 transcript of the investigation as Exhibit No. 2, confirms this testimony by the road

 mact~r `'n rlnac tt,a ,zrrittan tranerv>·int Vf tl~A 1"1,1!1 ~. ..+:.... L.a+...oo._ +T.,. ,7:.,....+.,t,.._
 .. r .. v v.vvm.rav mrv., nLL wuuJVLaYV v1 LiiV VUjIVV. Yoi;vrlir3LVVlv11 V4rLVYW11 L11W U1Jt74LAn11GL
 and the Claimant for that day. 3 The Claimant asked for the release of authorization No.
 1035 7 and shortly thereafter requested protection again for the same track which was
 granted under authorization No. 103 82. The lapse of time between these two actions was

 incorrect The MP is 273.9 Viz. @ p. 2 of Carrier's Submission. 2 Authorization No. 10357 was released at 3:04 PM. Authorization No. 10382 was obtained at 3:06 PM.
 LB P~ D _ h~`i ,A ulOAd i~o. 2~















- 5















The Board can but underline the seriousness of the rules at bar in this case. On the other hand, the facts of this case are, nevertheless, quite idiosyncratic.
 A mistake was made when the Claimant read the first authorization number to the dispatcher asking to be released from it. He admits this. Concurrently, a correction was made almost instantaneously while the dispatcher was still on the phone and a new authorization was provided to the Claimant. According to the Claimant, it was an honest mistake with an immediate mrreetion einr.P the rlicnatrh1-.r was atill nn the nhnna Tt appears to the Board, from information of record, that this is correct. Further, once the dispatcher was apprised of fne need for a new authorization he typed in the track number immediately which protected it before the time needed to give the new authorization number to the Claimant. In view of this the lapse for track protection might have been even less than one and a half minutes. While safety in this industry requires almost infallibility in following the rules, this Board recognizes that mistakes are made. But in this instance the mistake was admitted and almost immediately corrected. Certainly this must be factored in by a Board such as this in framing a ruling.

statement at the investigation. He does not shy away from admitting having made an
error. KaLner: he states he made one and immediately corrected it. i nis board recognizes
 that this is what reasonable people do in order to avoid accidents.


report the problem which was created, albeit immediately corrected, to the road master. There was a time lapse: albeit immediately recognized and corrected. But there was a lapse nevertheless. The language of Rule 1.4 is unambiguously clear with respect to what ought to be done under such circumstances. It states that employees must "...promptly report any violations to the proper supervisor..." In not doing that the Claimant was in error.
 The Claimant to this case is an experienced, long-term employee. There is nothing in the record to show that he has not been a good employee and an asset to this employer.

 v _ _ _1 `.t:_ +t_ _ .r + _ .... +1:_ 7 :_ ,.1.- r~_,.~ : -.,.11 ,.+t.,.
 ll1 Vlew VI L111J, Ulu GXmIlUatlldg ~,irLLV111JUllltiGJ VULIUI1~U ll1 L11~ ~VLG~V111, aJ W~11 aJ LLl~ rule violations that did take place the Board is of the view that reasonable minds would conclude that discipline was merited but that the discipline assessed to the Claimant in this case was unduly harsh and unreasonable. The ruling by the Board, therefore, is that the discipline assessed will be reduced to ten (10) work days without pay. The Claimant shall be compensated by the Carrier for all additional time held out of service as a result of the discipline assessed by letter issued to him on April 25, 2001. The Claimant's record shall be amended accordingly. Compensation to be paid to the Claimant shall be at the rate of pay during the time held out of service.


jointly meet in order to mutually agree on the proper amount of compensation to be paid

 to the Claimant as a result of the Award issued in this case.
 1 L Na- (~zc~4 A w" w~.











                                              i7 n


                              1 ' , Carrier Member

                                  ~1

                                      I


                              Roy . Robinson, Employee Member


      Date: ~ `~ b 0

      7~