AWARD NO.
TO DISPUTE
) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE WAY EMPLOYES DIVISfON,
) INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
)
)
) CSX TRANSPORTAT[ON, INC.
STATEMENT OF CLA[M:
1. The Carrie(s discipline (dismissal) Mr. C. Bryant by Jetter dated July 17, 2017, in connection with allegations that he occupied 707 working limits of an employe in charge and relocated a conditional stop board from the north end of the crossing to the south end without permission was arbitrary, unsupported, unwarranted and in violation of the Agreement (Carrier's File 2017-224799 CSX).
As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part 1 above, Claimant C Bryant shall ' ** with rights
that all charges be expunged from Mr. Bryant's record.' (Employes' Exhibit
FINDINGS:
The Board, upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence, finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act. as amended, that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated March 20, 2008, this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. While working as an Assistant Bridge Foreman in the Carrier's Bridge and Building (B&B) Department on May 2017, Claimant set his high rail vehicle on the tracks within the track authority of another employee without first obtaining permis-
Punuc LAW BOARD No. 7163
sion to do so, In order to accomplish this, Claimant moved the other employee's red boards from one 
came the was directed to attend a formal at which with occupying working
limits of an employee-in-charge and relocating a 
board without permission.
Following the investigation, Claimant was dismissed from service.
At the investigation, it was determined that Claimant had overlapping track authority with
another employee, \vho had placed red boards in the vicinity the crossing at which Claimant placed his vehicle on the rails. Claimant testified that he made two or three attempts to contact the other employee to obtain permission to enter his protected territory, but the other employee never responded. After five minutes, Claimant moved the red boards approximately thirty under the belief that doing so meant he was not occupying the other employee·s track authority. Claimant testified that was taught to do this more senior employees.
The Organization offers several arguments in this case. It first asserts the investigation notice did not cite specific rules Claimant was being charged with violating. We cannot find that the parties' Agreement requires such specificity in the investigation notice. Rather, the Agreement requires that the employee be notified of "the exact offense of which he is accused." By specifying the conduct that would be the subject matter of the investigation, we find that the Carrier met its notice obligation under the Rule. Claimant was sufficiently informed of the charge against him and was able to present his defense to the charge.
With regard to the merits, the Organization asserts the Carrier's rules do not specifically address the situation of overlapping authorities. It was not until after this incident, says the Organi-
PlJBLIC LAW BOARD No. 7163
No. 327
3
zation that the Carrier issued instructions explaining that what Claimant had done was improper.
em-
ployee with no prior discipline on his record.
In our review of the record, it is the Board's conclusion that the Carrier had substantial evidence to support its charge against Claimant. Claimant committed two offenses - he moved another employee's red boards and entered that employee·s track authority limits without first obtaining permission. These are very serious rules violations. Disciplinary action was warranted. Without diminishing the seriousness of Claimant's offense, though, we will direct that Claimant be reinstatedto service with seniority rightsunimpaired, but withoutcompensation for time lost. We make this decision solely upon the basis of Claimant's length ofservice and the fact that
his record contains no prior disciplinary actions.
AWARD: Claim sustained in accordance with the above Findings.
Andrew Mulford Employee Member
Dated: -2-/4-/19-----
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Katrina Donovan Carrier Member