SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 1063
Case No. 197
Award No. 197
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
and
Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Norfolk and Western Railway Company, et al.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of Engineer N. Ravizee, Alabama Division,
Birmingham District, for restoration to service with
seniority/vacation rights unimpaired, and pay for all
time lost in connection with alleged violation of
Norfolk Southern Operating Rules 90 and 109, while
serving as Engineer on Train 221A1, October-9, 1996.
Investigation conducted October 18, 1996. Article 31,
Schedule Agreement.
OPINION OF BOARD:
Claimant Engineer was charged with exceeding maximum
authorized speed at approximately 6:45 a.m. on the morning of
October 9, 1996, while operating Train 221A1 in the vicinity of
Milepost 784.9 near Henry Ellen. A slow order had been issued
under Dispatcher's Bulletin 3629, which placed the 10-m.p.h. slow
order into effect at B:O1 a.m. on October 8, 1996. Claimant
received the slow order prior to going on duty at 11:45 p.m. on
October 8th, and passed the slow order area at approximately 6:45
a.m. on October 9th. The order had been discussed between the
two crew members and it was their mistaken impression the order
was effective on October 9th at S:O1 a.m.
When Carrier learned of the incident, it notified Claimant
to appear-for a formal investigation on a charge of exceeding the
maximum authorized speed at the time and date mentioned above.
Following trial, Claimant was found guilty of the charge and
dismissed from the service. Petitioner appealed the discipline
in the usual manner on the property and then to this Board.
Claimant was notified of the Board's hearing date and granted the
right to attend.
During the course of the formal investigation Claimant
admitted he mistakenly thought the slow order was effective at
8:01 a.m. on October 9th rather than the previous day, and that
SBA 1063
Case No. 197
Award No. 197
was the reason for the overspeed, not a deliberate or intentional
violation of the operating rules. The Organization also asserted
the Bridge Foreman could have alerted Train 221, when he saw them
approaching at excessive speed. The Bridge Foreman answered
saying he gave that idea consideration, but was afraid the
Engineer might put the train in emergency and tear up the bridge,
so he waited until the train had practically cleared, before
asking him if he had a slow order. This was a judgment call,
so
we find no mutual dereliction from that occurrence.
It is apparent Claimant's crew was responsible for the slow
order violation in this instance. However, it is also clear it
was caused by an oversight, not an intentional or flagrant
disregard of the operating rules. .
Consequently, we feel Claimant's long service retard merits
consideration, so we will reinstate him to service with seniority
unimpaired, but without the compensation claimed for time held
out of service.
FINDINGS:
The Agreement was violated.
AWARD:
Claim sustained as set forth in the opinion.
ORDER:
The Carrier will place this Award into effect within thirty
(30) days of the effective date.
!.
Dated- at Norfolk, Virginia, this s --.-/~5Itdav of
1997.
~ i
W. F. E~uker, Neutral Member
" s
f,
Anthony . Jones, carrier member
P. T. Sorrow, Organization Member
Carrier File: ZE-BRME-96-26
Org. File: A591-899D