Claimant was disqualified from his position as Foreman on November 7, 1994 due to his alleged failure to comply with Carrier and FRA Track Standards while making track repairs near Stroud Oklahoma during the work week of October 31-November 3, 1994.
The December 2, 1994 investigation reveals that during a routine inspection Roadmaster Emberg found a frog on the main line turnout near Stroud to have between a 3/4" and 7/8" tight gage on a switch where Claimant was the Foreman of the mini tie gang responsible for putting new switch ties in during the week in question. Emberg's findings were confirmed by Foreman Wheeler, who also inspected the line for Standard compliance, and noted that the only reason for such tightness would be that it was improperly gaged. There was no defect found in Claimant's track gage. The track was taken out of service until the gage was corrected. There is no dispute that an improper gage could be a serious safety hazard.
Claimant explained that he gaged the track in that area, and that he had never been trained to do so nor had he ever done so before this time. His mini tie gang had 5 machine operators aside from himself, and he also had to do the work of a truck driver and laborer during that work week. Claimant stated that he asked the senior men on his gang, neither of whom were FRA-qualified, about properly gaging when there was an overflow, and he used the track gage as he was taught, underneath the overflow. Claimant noted that he gaged the rail in question 1/4" tight on each side due to that amount of overflow on each rail, and that he felt he complied with all the Rules and gaged the frog in question properly. He admitted
week for his own work as well as a truck driver and laborers job, a situation created by the Carrier's improper staffing. It seeks the reinstatement of Claimant's Foreman seniority.
After full consideration of all of the facts in this case, this Board is of the opinion that substantial evidence in the record supports the Carrier's action in disqualifying Claimant from his Foreman position. There is no doubt that Claimant attempted to follow what he knew to be the proper procedure for gaging the frog in question, and that he felt that he was complying with all Rules in doing so. Further, under the circumstances, Claimant cannot be entirely faulted for improperly gaging the switch, since he had never been trained to do so, nor shown the proper procedure or tolerances in situations of overflow. This Board has no reason to question Roadmaster Emberg and Foreman Wheeler's assessment that the gage was excessively tight.
Regardless of the reasons why the Track and FRA standards were not followed, the situation created by Claimant's mini tie gang on the date in question was a safety hazard which could have had disastrous results. While the Carrier may be partially responsible for Claimant's lack of training which may have led to this situation, by Claimant's own admission, he was not qualified to be a Foreman at the time. That being the case, the Carrier acted properly in removing him from that classification. However, since Claimant seems to be sincere in his desire to receive training to qualify for that position, he should be given that opportunity when it next presents itself.