N.R.A.B. Awards adopted by the Fourth Division make clear that a supervisor is not responsible for the negligence of others. Exemplary awards addressing this specific issue are:

Fourth Division Award No. 2710 (Weston)

"The record fails to establish, however, that Claimant was responsible for the accident and does not provide a proper basis for discipline. Indeed, Trainmaster Acton's testimony would seem to indicate that the contrary is true. Certainly, a yardmaster is not responsible for the negligence of the employe under his supervision when there is no showing that he himself has failed to use due care."

Fourth Division Award No. 3046 (O'Brien)

"The record reveals that on the claim date claimant issued instructions to Conductor Borthwick to pick up 9 C&O cars that were on East 7, double to East 1, get his air on 35 cars for the C&O and deliver to the delivery point. However, Conductor Borthwick came out of Track #7 with only 8 cars not 9 as instructed.

"We are not persuaded that Carrier has sustained the burden imposed upon it by establishing claimant's responsibility for the Conductor's failure to pick up 9 cars as instructed. When claimant issued the instructions, it was incumbent on the Conductor to see that they were executed. It is uncontroverted that subsequent to issuing these instructions claimant returned to his duties as a yardmaster. If the unnecessary expense and delay incurred by Carrier was the result of an employee's dereliction of duty, that responsibility lies with the Conductor and not with the claimant."

Fourth Division Award No. 3188 (Lieberman)

"The transcript of the investigation indicates that Claimant left instructions for the three units to be prepared by the Hostlers to go west at 11:45 P.M. on October 24th. The precise wording of his instructions to his clerk and the Yardmaster are in doubt but the thrust of the direction is unquestionable. It must be assumed that direct phone conversation with the Hostlers would have produced no different result. It is also evident from the testimony that the Hostlers routinely prepare similar units for operations as part of their normal functions, without special injunctions as to fueling. It is not credible to assume that Carrier expects the Foreman to look over the shoulder of all employes working under his jurisdiction to be sure that they have accomplished their job - particularly routine jobs. It is expected that he must give them proper training and adequate instructions as to the work to be accomplished. In the dispute before us there is no evidence to show that the Hostlers did not get the usual instruction to service the units in preparation for movement. It is also noted that Claimant testified, without rebuttal, that the unit in question had not been properly fueled in Walbridge on October 22nd which would have provided sufficient fuel for the run in question on October 24th. Although Claimant may not have exercised the best judgement in spending the time he did at Whittier Street, he used his supervisory prerogative in deciding to spend time with a disabled unit rather than at the round house in more routine activity. It is clear that the investigation in this dispute does not contain sufficient evidence to support the conclusion of guilt and therefore we must sustain the claim." (Emphasis ours)

Fourth Division Award No. 2236 (Seidenberg)

"The Organization stresses that it is not the duty of the Yardmaster to confer and review in detail, with a yard crew, the moves the said crew should make in shoving a Yard Track. His responsibilities are of an over-all nature. In the instant case he instructed the Yard Crew to be careful and warned them that the adjacent track was fouling. The Organization states that the Yard Foreman was negligent in directing his crew to shove No. 1 Track `blind' because he mistakingly (sic) thought said Track would hold all the cars. It maintains that it was error to hold the Claimant responsible for the Yard Foreman's negligence or mistakes.

"The Board finds that the Claimant informed the Yard Foreman generally about the fouling of No. 1 Track. The Yard Foreman stated that he knew about the fouling of the Track but assumed that Track No. 1 was clear by the time the yard crew shoved said Track. The Yard Foreman was also aware of the almost full capacity of this Track. The Board does not believe that there were any general over-all acts of supervision that the Claimant failed to take. The Board finds that the Carrier is in error in demanding that the Claimant Yardmaster exercise the same minute and detailed supervision that is exercised by a Yard Foreman, over a yard crew. The two jobs are not identical, and the nature of responsibilities demanded there is different. The Board does not suggest that a Yardmaster has less responsibility than a Yard Foreman, but it does suggest that the character of the responsibility exercised by a Yardmaster is different - it is more general and less specific. The Board does not find from its analysis of the record that the Claimant's acts, as a supervisor, were casually related to the accident in question."

Fourth Division Award No. 3166 (Lieberman)

"Claimant was assessed discipline consisting of seven days suspension and thirty demerits for his alleged responsibility in causing a collision between the 7:00 A.M. Bethlehem Road Drill and the 7:59 A.M. Lightside Hump Crew at 8:17 A.M., November 7, 1973 while he was serving as Yardmaster at the Allentown Consolidated Yard. The Accident resulted in the derailment of one car and damage to the engine and to twenty other cars. Carrier specifically found that Claimant was in part responsible for the collision in that there was a failure between Claimant, as Yardmaster, and the Yard Foreman of the 7:00 A.M. Bethlehem Road Drill to have a firm understanding of the move in question.

"The record of the investigation reveals that Claimant did not in this instance give any instructions to the Yard Foreman to shove or not to shove track #8. However the Conducting officer established by his own questioning that Claimant and the Yard Foreman had a definite understanding with respect to shoving the tracks. Based on this normal understanding between the two men the Yardmaster cannot be held responsible for this particular accident. The seriousness of the incident cannot be minimized nor can Carrier's right to impose discipline when employees fail to perform their duties in an efficient and satisfactory manner be ignored. In this case, however, the evidence does not support Carrier's charge and conclusions."

Fourth Division Award No. 1302 (Gilden)

"By no stretch of the imagination has it been demonstrated that any portion of the yard crew's blame rubs off on claimant. It has not been proved that he knew or should have known of the wrongdoing and condoned or tolerated same. His testimony shows that during the interval between 4:30 A.M. and 4:55 A.M. he was so completely engrossed with his own yardmaster job duties as to make it impossible for him to keep the defaulting yard crew under constant surveillance. When otherwise occupied with his job demands, it is not a failure to exercise supervision for a yardmaster to rely on the employes under his jurisdiction to faithfully observe the lunch period time limits. To say that as yardmaster, claimant should be considered as a guarantor of the yard crew's good conduct and be held personally accountable for their individual misdeeds is both fallacious and unrealistic."

Fourth Division Award No. 2686 (Weston)

"We agree with Award No. 1302 that a yardmaster does not guaranty the proper performance of his subordinates' duties and should not be disciplined for their misdeeds unless there is evidence that he himself has been at fault."

Fourth Division Award No. 2698 (Weston)

"We agree with Petitioner that a yardmaster is not the guarantor of his subordinates' work performance and should not be held accountable for their negligence. It is equally clear that discipline is not to be meted out to a yardmaster merely because employes under his supervision become involved in a costly accident during his trick. The controlling question is whether or not the yardmaster himself contributed to the accident by failure to use due care."

Fourth Division Award No. 4880 (Simon)

"Turning to the merits, we do not find there is substantial evidence to support the charge. Claimant's job is to supervise, not to do all the work. The record indicates he had given instructions to check brakes prior to the movement of locomotive consists. The Service Attendants were qualified to make the move, but failed to comply with Claimant's directives. The failure of subordinates to follow a supervisor's instruction is not necessarily proof of a failure to supervise. The three day suspension assessed Claimant, therefore, was unwarranted. The Agreement was violated."