Case No. 9
Award No, 4 CRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD, INCORPORATED

Martin FI. Malin, Chairman &'.\Tevtrai 141ember

1'. K. Geller, Employee Member

11.I. 7. Kovacs, Carrier Member




1. '1"tae dismissal of Track Inspector A. 3. Kosa3l:e fox his alleged t aiiurc to properly



2. Tract; Inspector A. 3. Koselke shad now he reinstated to ser*ice and "'=** We also




Public Law Board "jlta. 69.66, upon the whole record and all the euic3esxce, finds and bolds that Employee and Carrier are employer: and carrier within the meztating of the Railway Labor tact, as amended; and, that the Board has jurisdiction ever tire dispute herein; and, that the paities to the dispute were given due notice of the hearing thereon atad did participate, therein.
On February 26, 2iJ03, Carrier notified Claimant to appear for an investigation on March 7, 2003, concerning his alleged failure to properly inspect track which led to the derailment of a train at Sediey, Indiana, an February 20, 2043. The hearing was held as scheduled, On March 14, 2003, Carrier notified Claimant that rte had begirt found guilty of the charge and dismissed from service.

 The record reflects that on February '20, 2003, at approximately 6:(IO p.m., Train H-5i531-19 derailed at Medley, Indiana, MP 50.4. The derailment resulted in approximately $1 million in douxaa=e. An FR A on-site investigation team detertnined that. (lie derailment was eaus.°.d by wide track gage-

Claimant was a Patrol Foreman who was responsible for inspecting track between MP 39.6 and idle 1 flS.tl. There is no dispute that Claimant was responsible for inspecting the track where the derailment occurred, or that he inspected that portion of the; track two days before the derailment, i.e. on February 18, 2993. The record reflects that the track at the derailment site exceeded the FRA maximum track gage. It further reflects that the rail was cupped or groaned, indicating that the wheels had been running on top of the rail toward the inside gage. Testimony front a Track Foreman and the Engineering Superintendent established that cupping of rail takes place over a period of weeks. Claimant should have observed the wide gage when by inspected the track on February 18. His failure to do so was negligent. We hold that Carrier proved tine charge by substantial evidence.

 Accordingly, we turn to the penalty imposed. We note that this is a very serious offense, but we also note that Claimant's service with Carrier dated to 1976. There is no evidence of any prior discipline in Claianant's twenty-seven years of service. Under the circumstances, we conclude that a lengthy suspension and a significant period of disqualification as a track inspector were warranted but that the penalty v`i di6tniesal was excessive. Accordingly, we award that Claimant is to be reinstated to service with seniority unimpaired but without compensation for tirrte rant of service. Claimant is to be disqualified as a track inspector for a period of two years. After the two year period expires, Claimant may seek to zuqualify as a track inspector.

 Claim sustained in accordance whit the findings.

 The Board, having detex`tnitted that an award favorable m Claimant be made, hereby orders the Carrier to make the award effective within thirty (3©) days following the date two members of the Board affix their signatures hereto



iV( J. Kov:ics P. K, Geller
 Carrier Member Employee Member

    Dated at Chicago, Illinois, January 22> 2004


                          2