PARTIESs: Brotherhood of Maintenance ef Way Employee TO s DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation-Company


                  STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 'Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that%


        (1) The thirty (30) day suspension and permanent disaualification as a machine operator assessed S. B:. Blum fo alleged failure to properly protect Tamper ffl Track at Onawa, Iowa was without Just and sufficient cause and unwarranted. (Organization File 4D-4691; Carrier File 81-84-224-D).


        (2) Claimant S. B: Blum shall be allowed the remedy prescribed in Rule 19(x)."


FINDINGS:

 This Beard, upon the whole record aqd all the evidence, finds and holds that the employes and the carrier involved, are . respectively employes and Carrier within the meaning of the railway Labor Act as amended. end that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein.

 On. June 22, 1984, claimant was assigned as a machine operator on Carrier's Iowa Division, assigned to a tamper in the vicinity of Onawa, Iowa. On the date claimant's machine was mechenically inoperable and claimant and the machine remained on No'. 1 track at Onawa. The remainder of the gang, with the remaining machines, left the siding.

 According to the Carrier, about 4:10 P.M* on the date involved, the Roadmastaater was hyrailing in the vicinity of Onawa andsaw that the tamper was parked on the side track. The Roadmaster noticed that neither switch leading to the track on which the tamper was parked had been spiked, andthat the south switch was lined to the track on which the machine·was parked; claimant was not present, and red flags were not posted at either end of the machine.

 On June 29, 1984, claimant was instructed to appear for a hearing scheduled for July 3, 1984, on the charge:

      "Your responsibility in connection with your failure to properly protect your machine System Nb. 1p-3189 (Jr. Tamper) an #1 track at Onawa, at approximately 4:10 P.M. on June 22,- 1984."

    SBA-924 Award No. 55


                                            Docket No. 64 Page 2.


The hearing was postponed and conducted on July 9, 1984. A copy of-the transcript of the hearing has been made a part of the record. The witnesses at the hearing were the Roadmaster and the claimant. The Roadmaster testified as to the situation he observed, &t about 4:10 P.M., on June 22, 1984, as- stated by the Carrier in its submission. He went on to testify:

          "Q. What's the proper way to flag a machine when it's left unattended?

          °. You spike any switch that leads into that track and let the dispatcher know that the track is out of service. Otherwise, if they use that track for setouts the dispatcher won't let you take that track out of service, you just put up a red board 800 feet in advance of the machine and let the dispatcher know."


Claimant testified that he had been a machine operator for about ten years. He. admitted that the machine was left unproteoted, and indicated that he was not aware of the proper procedures for protecting the equipment.

 Carrier's Rules 1011, 1015 and 1041 of Rules of the Engineering Department, were read into the hearing. They provides

          l0lls."Employes in charge of work equipment will be personally responsible for the.safe operation of the equipment."


          10153 "Information received concerning mov@ment of train does not relieve theemploye in charge from the responsibility of protecting work equipment against trains, hy-rail vehicles and other work equipment."


          1041:- "Work equipment must not be left unattended on track. It must be removed from the track or protected by flag when not in use."


The claimant testified in the hearing that the foreman gave him no instructions as to secuting the switches and providing flag protection for the machine= that he assumed that the foreman had taken care of the protection. No employe should act under assumptions in a matter of this kind. If the claimant did not know what protection had been provided, then heshould have taken action to find out. It is.incredible that an employs with ten years of experience as a machine operator would not know the requirements for protecting such equipment.
      Award No. 55

      Docket No. 64

      SBA-924

                                              Page 3.


There was substantial ePtdence in the hearing to warrant the discipline imposed; and the Board will not interfere.

                      A W A $ D


      Claim denied. \-~


                    Chairman, Neutral Member


L
 C 1 emb 1.abor Member
 DATED: '~.