COMPANY CASE NO. 92


PARTIES TO IM DISPUTE:

 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

      -and-


National Railroad Passenger Corporation ( Amtrak)

 STATEM:NT OF CLAII~I:

      Appeal from the discipline of thirty (30) day suspension assessed Passenger Engineer S. D. Allison on March 15. 1990, in connection with the following charge:


      Charge: "To develop the facts and place individual responsibility, if any,

      in connection with the charge that you failed to properly stop

      prior to coupling into equipment located on track #26, Union

      Station, Chicago resulting in an over speed impact, which in turn

      resulted in two occupied rail cars striking the bumping post.

      These incidents occurred while you were performing service as

      Engineer on the "Texas Eagle" Inaugural Train, Engine #395 at

      approximately 7:08 a.m., January 18, 1990.

      Rule involved: AMTRAK Midwest Division

      Timetable Number One; Special Instructions

      #1103-2 and #1136-1: NORAC Operating Rules

      effective October 1. 1988 - #114, #116, #117 and

      #709."


OPINION OF BOARD:
      Claimant entered engine service on the Illinois Central Railroad on February 25, 1970.


He became an employee of Amtrak on March 18, 1987. At the time of the incident giving rise
                                            58A No. 928


                            AWARD No. 92

                            NMB CASE NO. 92

                            UNION CASE NO. 92

                            COMPANY CASE N0. 92

                            2


to this claim, Claimant was assigned as engineer of Amtrak Train "Texas Eagle" Inaugural Train, Engine #395. After a failed coupling attempt on January 18, 1990, Track 26, Union Station, in Chicago, he was charged with failing "...to properly stop prior to coupling into equipment, resulting in an overspeed impact."
 The Board has reviewed the record before us. It is apparent that the Claimant was following the directions of his Conductor during the maneuver in question. It is also clear that the Conductor misdirected Claimant, who was not in a position to move the train except as directed by the Conductor, since the Conductor had a full purchase on the coupling operation and the Engineer did not.
 Under the circumstances the Carrier has not shown that Claimant was guilty of any dereliction of duty. Therefore, the Board finds no basis for the assessment of discipline imposed.
                      SB ' r A /~I.7 p~

                C~0. Za

                AWARD NO. 92

                NMB CASE NO. 92

                UNION CASE NO. 92

                COMPANY CASE NO. 92


    3


AWARD
Claim sustained

 Elizabeth C. Wesman, Chairman

 Carrier Mem er ~.

 nion Member on Member

 Dated at