Transportation, Inc.
Carrier File: 3224
Referee: Sherwood Malamud
The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the herein are """"'-U"'L and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by agreement of the that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and that the parties were of the hearing.
letter dated October 24, 2016, Claimant, C.S. Long requested that this disciplinary matter be processed by Public Law Board 7529 (Special Board of Adjustment) for expedited
CSX hired Assistant Track Foreman C.S. Long on February 18, 2008. The incident that gave rise to the discipline at issue occurred on August 7, 2016 in the vicinity of Parkwood, Alabama. Claimant served as the Employee In Charge (EIC) and Flagman on that date. He had 707-track authority over the segment of track for which was flagging a contractor from 2:30 to 10:30 a.m. The contnmtor was grinding the ceiling in a tunnel that encompassed a single Mainline track so that trailer (taller) trains could traverse the tunncL
On August 7, at l0:12 a.m., from Claimant's observation of the contractors, he believed they would clear the mainline track by l0:30. In a conversation between Claimant and a dispatcher at 10:12 a.m., Claimant indicated that the contractor would be done with their work and in the clear by 10:30 a.m. A train was lined up to travel through Claimant's 707 authority right after its expiration at 10:30 a.m.
The day before, the contractor barely the track time. The contractor did not follow Claimant's instruction.;;; for August 7. The contractor did not clear the track around 10:15. They pressed the limits on August 7. At 10:25 a.m., Claimant was busy setting the switch to get
contractor to
expiration of his 707 authority at 10:30 a.m. He allowed 707 track protection to expire.
as
follows:
emp1c,yei:Hr1-c11ari e must all and clear of the working limits before the "'"'""""""1" ,.. ., time. Before clearing the authority,
AH men and equipment of the working group are clear of the limits,
The track is safe for normal operation was the train dispatcher ha.-1 been advised of any necessary restrictions for movement
Rule 707.14
When employee-in-charge determines the track cannot cleared before the expiration or must take 1 of the following actions at least 5 minutes before the expiration:
Obtain a new authority the dispatcher; or
Post a flagman at each warning sign;
Cl[nmant never an on 2016. contractors' n Pr ' <U>1m1
remained on the until 10:37 a.m. had no track protection for seven minutes.
e>1
were seven conversations between dispatcher and Claimant over the time period of 10:12 to 10:37 a.m.
Claimant notified Assistant Division Engineer Reyes of the contractors' failure to clear the track by 10:30, soon after it occurred. When he arrived at the location of this job, ADE Reye-; removed Claimant from service and talked to the contractors about their failure to timely clear the track. By letter dated September 26, 2016, Division Engineer J.E. Paul assessed Claimant with discipline, time served which amounted to a 50-day suspension.
The Carrier argues that Claimant received a fair he<aring. As Flagman, Claimant was
responsible to provide track protection to the contractors' personnel. He failed to do so. He
allowed his 707 authority to expire without obtaining EC-1E authority to protect the track from train movement. The Carrier was lenient in the penalty imposed, time served. The Carrier asks that the Board deny this claim.
Ct211m.ant noted that he l1ad anticipated communications problems communicating with weeks prior to this he requested radios to enable him to
communicate contractors. On the incident, he had not received the radios as he had requested. He was unable to communicate with the contractors. The contractors did not follow the plan outlined in the pre-job briefing for August
The Organization objected to the August 9, 2016 notification letter's failure to set out the Rules allegedly violated by Claimant on August 7. This Board determined in Awards (MacDougaH) and (Malamud); ""-""' ==== = = =""--"'==:....=
(Kenis) that it was not necessary to specify the Rules allegedly violated. Under Rule 25, the
Carrier had to provide sufficient information to alert Claimant of the conduct that is the subject of the investigation. Carrier did so in the August 9, 2016 letter. Claimant received a bearing.
The Carrier met burden of proof. It established by substantial evidence that Claimant violated Rules 707.13 and 707.14, when he failed to obtain EC-1E protection for the track as 707 expired. The contractors' failure to dear track according to the daily pre-job
contractors' pressing on the before on August 6 explains on track from 10:30 to 1 a.m. It does not excuse Claimant's failure to request and obtain EC-lE authority to protect the track as his 707 authority expired on August 7, 2016.
Claimant's conduct is a major violation under the Carrier's IDPAP policy. The discipline of time served conforms to the Carrier's policy. There is no basis to reduce or set aside the discipline imposed.
AWARD
Claim denied.