,
,
and )
Sackgrgun(j
.
.
> OT$ 29.2 Roadway Worker (EmpJoyas)
> 01S 31,.Z Responslbllltlli$ofthe Roadway Worker,"
caseNo.68 AwardNo.6&
Consistent with the PLB Agr ment for this Board, theevldentlary record In thls proceeding iscomprised of thefollowing: (AJ notice of Investigation,(B) transcrtpt of Investigation and all related exhibits,{¢) dlsdplln«i assessment letter and (OJ on-property c::orrespondimce related to progn35Sion of the dalm.
At theoutset of the hearfo,. the Organization objected to thecarrier's recordation of the proceeding with thetranscrlptlOnlst located at an off..slte, remote location. Eicperfence show.s, BMWEstathis method of transcription can result Inan.lnac:curatr:Umd Incomplete record. The Organization requested tne transcrlptlonlst be physically present to record the proceedings. CPdenied the request stlrtfng an off..site transcrfpttonfstls oftert used forthese proceedings. l'he Board flnds the pt of the
proceeding complete andaccurate which rssufflclentfor this trlbunars use in rendering a ct.:lslon. The
Board alscJ ffndsthat theinddent date of January 16, 2017, Inthe notice ofJormal lnvestl11ation Isa typographtcal error; thecorrect date Is January 17, 2017, Thts typosraphlcal error did notaffuctthe Organization'$ and Claimant's pri!serrtatlQnof a d•nseto thecharged rt.desvfolatlons,
OnJanuary 17, io11,Oalmant was:a dlstnbutfon crew foreman with an assignment to pick upscrap rail tiesontheCamel"ia main linetwo (CP 2,Inthe Bensenvllla Yard. As.hewasunfamlffar w&th theterrltory and train movtments within the Yard, Claimant requestecfasslstance throust, his supervl$C>r for train movements andtrack protection, Supervisor Anderson contacted Roadmaster Due; the Roadmaster assigned Foreman Martinet to assist Claimant. During Clalmant'stwe(26) years of service.with the Carrier performing Maintenance-of-Waywork fromthe Canadian border In North Dakota and Minnesota ard BlnMnvllla Yar4 he has Incurred no tract( protection rules violations and no CP official has ln!itructed him that Malnwnam:e,:of.way employees are not authorized to foul, track based on signal.Indicators.. All mO\lements by Claimant were directed by the 8-17 tower operator en track under her control. Tbere Is no dispute that Cfalmant. had proper protection with a Form 8 for
perfonnfn& work onCP 2
The Issue is wheth11r there Issubstantial evidence supporting the Carrier's decision that Claimant did not have ptoper track protection on January 17,.2017, when he entered a manual lnterfod, based on a slllflal Indicator, and fouled a controlled nck {men one, metra two) beyond absolutesignals without blocksset up. CP states thatproper protection would have been "9'.S.3,. verbal or written pem,lsslon tradund time beyQnd metra main, Form Bor se,vket of a conductor pilot. CPstates that red stgrtal lndlcatotutoptralns but provide no protection for employees.
The Organliatlcn state$thataarmant received proper protection to proceed beyondthe absolute signal based onthe&-17 roperator Instruction tor Cfalmantto enter the manual lnterlcck on signal Indicators with shunting equipment (road rail and attached cars). Once Claimant received the green signal to enter, the tower operator placed red $topsat thaeastward and westward ,isnal bklcks to restrict trainsfrom enterlnslot Claimant!s protection. The Organization note$ that Claimant's track protection west of tha IJ..17 Interlock was absolutesignal that stopped. Thtt absolute slgnal provided the track.authortt.yin On Trade safety for Controlled Tracie, 9.S.3 (,..absolute signals at stop"). Claimant Is rules quallfled{GCOR 9.0, Block Sy$tem Rules}; the Roadmaster acknowledged there fs no specific rule prohlbitlns Malntenenee-ot-Way employees from operating on signal Indicators.
Notwithstandingthegreen slllflal, the Carrier states that SlllflaJ Indication Is not track protection for Maintenance-of-Wayemployees because theyare not.qualified onoperating rules for signal tests. Progor pmftti:tlPP wguld '14'\lft t?@n tritt* and tfmtJ qr Fqrm 8; CP states that Clafmant could have
Case No 68 AwardNo.68
challenpd and tef1..1$ed the tower operator's Instruction ta proceed as vlolatlns ori-track safety procedureor rule. Sfnce Claimant did notchallense the tower operator's Instruction and violated Off track safety procedures or rule by not having proper track protection to proceed, Claimant violated the following rules:
OTS 29.2 •Roadway Worker(EMployeesJ
4. Each employee has the right ta challenge, II\ goodJatth, any instruction
to violate an on-track safety procedure or rule. They shall Inform the Employee In dearge. thatthe necessary on trade safety provisions ta be used attheJob location do. not comply with theRufes. They shall remain clear of the track until the.conflict Is resolved. Conflict resolution procedures are
found Inors Rule 31.0 (Right to Challenseon Track Safety),
5, Employees must not perform any workthatwill Interfere with the safe: Passage oftralns,.unlesson track protection lsprowded.
ors 3L2- R§ponslbllitfesof the Roadway Worker
Each Roadway Worker Must:
Do notfoul a trackexcept when necessary in the performance Qf duty. Ascertain that On-Track safety rs being provided before fouling a track.
Refuse any directive.to violate an.On•Tl'ack Safety rulaand promptly notify your SUpervlsor when the safety provisions, to be applied at the jobsite, do not comply with the rules.
The Board tlnds there Is Insufficient evidence that Claimant violated ors 29.2, 14, In this regard, given Claimant's 26 years of experience and the assistance provided by the Roadmaster's staff to obtain track protection, there was.nosood faith basis for etalmantto dlaftenge and refuse the fl..17 tower operator's Instruction. Thetower operator granted verbal permission {"go ahead proceed with thesignals") for Clatmant to enterthemanual Interlock and traverse track to absolute signals. The Board finds there- Is Insufficient evidence that Claimant vtolated 11. 5 because, aswritten andapplied Uterally. Claimant only
passed through the manual Interlock and did not perform any work within It. Claimant performed work on CP Z with proper protectton- Form B. Forthereasons.and findings that Claimant did not violate OTS 29.2, 1114 andS, the Board find!therels Insufficient evrdence to find Claimant violated OTS 31.2 • Responslbllitles of the Roadway Worker.
Since there are no rules violatlons,.the Board willsustain the clalm and grant the Orpnltat10n'$ requested remedy. Indoingso, however. the Board recognizes the enduring and dally emphasis for on track safety such that having proper track protectfon Is not diminished but reinforced. ClalmanUs on noticethatthecircumstances presented In thisdalm are considered a rules violation by Cfl i,md will be treated accordingly should the circumstances be repeated.
. Page3 of4
CaseNo.68
AwardNo.68
Claim sumrned.
Patrick Haltl!r
Neutral Member
Carrier Member
Dated onthb day
of ;:Ja,;v•. 2018
Ryan Hidalgo
organization Member