PUBUC LAWBOARD NO. 7544
Rall amterence )
)
and )
)
)
)
cas•No.65
AwantNo.&S
System FIie No. D-141•16-445-74
on August s, 2016. the carrier Issued to Claimant r.Degensteltf a,iotfce of formal ln\tl!$tigatlon and
hearing The notice stated,ln part, thefollowing:
"The purpose of this Investigation/hearing Is to determine thefacts and circumstances
and to place responsibility,lfanyifn connection with your allegedlnvotvemeleading
to a derailment that occurred on the West Wyerrack ln Drake, NDon August 2!1d, 2016.
This Jndtcates a possible vtolatton:of, but fs not llmlted to,.the following rules:
GCOIU.1,1..MalntalngaSafecourse
GCQB1.11• Reportingand Comptvtngy,fth fnstruglon1
FRATfac:k Safety Standards Part 213•
On October 18, 2016, the Investigation and hearing convened wherein Clalmant and his representative were afforded the opportunity to present testimony and other evidence as we.II asexamine the Carrier's two (2) witnesses and elflht (SJexhibits.
On November 2, 2016, the Assistant Chief Track- Glenwood Issued a decision letter stating that the record of the proceeding established daimant's vlolatlon of FRATrack Safety Standards Part 213 (14,5.0 Track Inspection-Items Methodsof Aetlons). Based.on the vlolatfon, severity of the Incident, and Claimant's past dlsclpllnary record, CP asse$Sed Cfalrnanu ftve (5) day deferred suspension with five(5) days served.
on December 20, 2016, the Organization and thecarrier agreed to progress Claimant's dfsclplfne dispute for resolution before this Board usingtheabbreviated procedure provided for In Paragraph (Kl of the Pl& Agreement.
ElodJou
Public Law Board No. 7544, upon the whole record and all theevldenaJ, flnds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employes within the meanrng of the Railway Labor Act; asamended; that the Board has lHrlsdl n over the g15puie h,reln; and thatthe parties to thedispute were alven due notice of the hearing anddid participate therein.
PLBNo. 7544
CaseNo.65
AwardNo.65
Consistent wlttt tfot PlB.Agreement for thts Board, the evldentfary record In this proceeding is comprl!ied of thefollowing: (A) notice of Investigation, (8) tran$Cl'lpt of lnVfitlgatlc>n and all related exhibits, (C) discipline assefflnent letter and (0) on-property correspomfence related to progression of the claim.
At the outset of the hearing, the.Otgantzatlon objected tothe eamer's.recordatlonof the procee<flng with the transerlptlonlitlocated atan offwslte,. remote location. Experience shows» BMW& states, this method of transcription can result In an Inaccurate and Incomplete record. The Orprlizatlon requested that the transertptlonlst be physically present torecord the proceedings. CPdenied the request.The Board finds the transcript of the proceeding complete and accurate which is suffldent for this trlbunai's· use In renderlns a decision.
Claimant ts a qualified track lnspectorw"'1 over twenty-three (23) years of service with thecarrier. He inspected the West WyeTrack In ..«ordancewlththe Carrier's frequency requirements. On July 20,.. 2016, h!J Inspected by walking the West WV.• Track. He.did notreccrd any defects Inthe dllital track notebook(DTN), Qn August 2, 2016'. a derailment occurred onthe West Wye Track.. The Carrier
Investigated. thederailment and charged Claimant withvlolattna (I}.GCOR.1.1.1. Maintaining a Safe Course, (ii) GCOR i.U,, Report1111and Replylna with Instruction and (Ill) FAA Track Safety Standards PartU3. Following the cornpletlonof the Investigation/hearing, the Carrier determined that Claimant did not violate GCOA.1.1.1 or GCOR 1.13, butdalmantdld violate. FRA Track Safety Standards Part 213
at14.s.o Track Inspection-Items.Methodsof Actlom.
The Issueforthe Baard Iswhether there Is substantral.evldencetosupport the Carrier's deterrnfnatlon that Claimant violated FRATrack Safety Part 213 at 14,5.0Track fnspectfon--lterrt$, Methods flt Actfons. The Board flnds there Is Insufficient evidence. CPdetermlnedthatClalmantviolated 14.S.0 but the contents (\NOn.tln1. and requirements) of 14.5.0 were11Qt.submittedas a docurnent and Included asan exhibit bythe carrier for the evldentlaty record, Thus, the Board can only assume from CP testimony about thecontents of 14.S.O Which theCarrier $tates that Claimant violated. Thefailure tosubmit relevant and dlsposltlve documentary etJidence Is notconstrued favorably forthe Carrier.
According to thecarrier, thefastener pattern at the point of derailment (POD) did notmeet the Carrier's standard fastener pattern used onthe West WyeTtadc: and, f:lynotfolfowlngthestandard futener pattern, th1$ contributed to or allowed wide gauge at the POD. In thl's situation there:were two (21 screws 111 Insulated Jolntnnd four (4) screws in norrlnsutated Joints, The Roadmaster testified thatCl' does not have a standard fastener. pattern for screw splkesln rnsutated joints. Claimant testified that there Is, no standard pattemfor the Carrier's useofscrew spikeson:the tie plate$In the West Wye Track. Additionally, when the Roadmaster was questioned whether he considered rt a track de ctwhen there areonty two (2) screw spikes In the lhsulatedJolnt, the Roadmaster answered "I'm notsure/' Claimants failure to noteln the DTN thatthere were only two(2) screw spikes cannot beconsidered a violation given the Roadmaster's testimony.
Ffnalty, the locomotlve':s event recorder confirms that dynamic braking was used to slow the locomotive engine frorn 2S mph to 10 mph on the West Wye Track. Dynamic breaking applies additional forceto the rails. The Carrter'swftnessestestified that the derailment could have been caused by mechanical or train handling \llli n tti.1dy11rnnl¢ breaking was deployed toconserve fueland slow the train.
PLBNo. 7544
Case No.65
AwardNo.65
Given these flndln , the Boardfinds lnsuffTclent evidence tosupport the:Carrier's determination that Ocllmant vlolated FRA Track Safety Standards Part 213at 14.S.O. The Board wlll sustain the.claim and lfclllttheOrganlz rls·requestedremedy.
Claim sustained.
Patrick Halter
Neutral Member
. AnthOflVMossel Carrier Member
Ryan Hidalgo
Organization Member
