)
v. )
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY )
Claimant - Tyler Wilson
dispute. On the morning of June 2014, the Claimant was operating a Boxer machine on the RP04 gang, which was working near Rodd, Colorado. The crew was waiting on a siding for track and time when the Number Two Spiker Operator needed a ride back to his machine. The Claimant motioned to him that he would take him and the Spiker Operator hopped onto the Boxer. As they traveled down the track they approached a switch, and the Claimant made sure it was properly aligned before moving through it. However, the working heads on the Boxer hit the switch points, ripping the heads off the Boxer and wedging them in the switch. The Claimant acknowledged in his testimony at the investigatory hearing that he had forgotten that the working heads were in the down position and that he failed to lock up and pin up the heads before setting the Boxer in motion. A preliminary estimate of the damage to
= ..,. was $34,000; the record does any 
to the track and switch.
letter dated July 2014, the Carrier sent Claimant a Notice of 
"for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility, if any,
Following postponements, the 
2014. the hearing, the Claimant testified that he
run a Baby Clipper but was taken off that only two weeks; he was not sure why. June 26 was only his third day operating the Boxer. The Claimant stated that he had not received any formal training on its operation, only a brief walk-through to familiarize him with the functions of various buttons and switches and other operating components. The lock up/pin up procedure for the working heads on the was different from that on the Spike Puller and Baby Clipper machines that he had worked on before: they both required manual adjustment of the working heads while the Boxer had a button that automatically performed the lock up/pin up procedure. He attributed accident to confusion on his part about how to operate the Boxer.
an
the matter mutually, it has been appealed
According to the Carrier, the Claimant clearly violated MWOR 6.50.3 on June 26, 2014. There is no dispute that the Claimant failed to ensure that his equipment components were clear before traveling across a switch in a Boxer with the working heads in the down position, causing damage to both the Boxer and the track. The accident was a serious one and warranted the Level S 30 Day Record Suspension with a three-year review period that was assessed. The Organization contends that mitigating circumstances were present, in that the Claimant was never trained on the Boxer. He was a relatively new employee, having worked for the Carrier for about nine months when the accident happened. In addition, June 26 was only his third day on machine. He candidly testified that he forgot the controls and was confused because of his inexperience with the machine. The Carrier's failure to provide the Claimant with adequate training was a significant contributing factor in the accident, and he should not be punished for the Carrier's failure to properly train him on how to operate the Boxer.
Carrier found that the Claimant had violated Rule 6.50.3, Equipment Components Clear, which "Before passing over crossings, switches, and frogs, be sure all equipment components will clear." It is undisputed in the record that Mr. Wilson failed to lock up and pin up the working heads on the Boxer before setting it motion track, and that the accident occurred because the working beads were still in down position when Claimant drove the Boxer across a nrs1>n1>,rn, ant?;neia switch. Without more, Claimant's actions violated Rule v .. ., ......,. H"'""""''"' Organization argues that there were mitigating circumstances that minimize Claimant's responsibility for the accident, that he was not properly trained on
use the accident was only
on the Boxer. Its operation and controls were significantly different from the Spike
in the accident, the Board does not find Organization's arguments persuasive. The lock up/pin up procedure is not unique to the Boxer-it is a critical safety practice that is a required standard operating procedure on almost all of the equipment MOW employees use in the course of their work. The Claimant's testimony about the differences in lock up/pin up procedures on the various pieces of equipment he had operated establishes that he knew he was required to lock up and pin up before moving his equipment. To his credit, the Claimant did not claim that he did not know how to lock up and pin up on the Boxer. If he had had any questions, it was incumbent on him to contact a supervisor or even another employee for guidance before putting the machine in motion. From the testimony, it sounds as if lock up/pin up is easier on the Boxer, where the operator simply pushes a button, than on other machines that 
adjustment. is this a case where the button on the Boxer
operate properly. The Claimant simply forgot. The resulting accident caused
damage to the machine and the track. The conclusion that he 
ensure that all of equipment components would clear any crossings, switches, and frogs that he encountered while taking the Spiker Operator back to his
AWARD
ORDER
This Board, afte:r consideration of the dispute identified 
that an award favorable to Claimant not made.
Andria S. Knapp, Neutral Me
Nathan Moayyad, Carrier Member 
Date