Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIRO.AD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8567
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8547
 2-WP-FO-' 81

 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee John B. IXaRGcco when award was rendered.

Parties to Dispute:
Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 Western Pacific Railroad Company

 That in violation of the current agreement, Firemen and Oiler James 0. King, was unjustly dismissed from the service of the Western Pacific Railroad; following formal hearing held on date of January 106, 1979.

 That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to make the aforementioned James 0. King whole by restoring him to Carrier's service with seniority rights unimpaired, plus restoration of all holiday, vacation, health and welfare benefits, pass privileges and all other rights, benefits and/or privileges that he is entitled to under rules, agreements, custom or law, and ccr.,,pensated for all lost wages.

Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the emPloye or employes involved in this disp::te are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 'Ibis Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


carrier's Stockton Diesel 5nop. Claimant was crcarged with failure to wear and use
 proper safety equipT:?ent while performing his duties. After notice and hearing,
 claimant was discharged on January 25,

 The organization first argues that the hearing was unfair because the hearing

 violations bt this Cla1T.^,atlt. ::h3.le'_ SL?Cil.' tc.Stl.":OTl;;' m.-':y be only dubiously relevant
 to the instant charge, we see no harm in permitting the evidence t-) -T7 the
 claimant has a poor attitude about shop safefil-. -, '~--.-.: - -. _ ... L ._..>Lii~jony cannot be
 used to prove the claimant committed this particular rule violation or to si:cw .e
 Form 1 Page 2

 Award No. 8567
 Docket No. 8547
 2 -WP-FO-' 81

 has a propensity to violate safety rules. The charge must be proved with more reliable evidence.

 At 9:05 a.m. on January 12, 197J, the Shop Supcrinte_-_dont, the Assistant Shop Superintendent and the Diesel Shop Foreman observed claimant steam cleaning railroad equipment without using the proper safety devices. Specifically, the claimant's :;ce si:iold was in a raised position (which ex-posed his face to the steam and chemicals) and teas not using or wearing a portable respirator. The carrier had provided the claimant with the respirator at the claimant's insistence. None of the supervisors instructed the claimant to immediately engage in the proper use of the face shield and respirator. Later, one of the supervisors told claimant he would be formally charged with failure to use safety equipment. The claimant testified that at the time he was observed, he was merely adjusting the face shield and because he was outside with the wind blowing away from him, the respirator was unnecessary. The carrier held regular safety lectures and provided all safety equipment at its expense.

 There is substantial evidence demonstrating that at 9:05 a.m. on January 12, 1979, the claimant was performing his assignment without using the proper safety devices. Even if the claimant sincerely believed that a favorable breeze rendered the respirator useless, he should wear it in case the wind ceases or changes direction. In addition, the mere fact that the safety equip:ient is uncomfortable is not a recognized e:;cuse to break safety rules. Tile organization also argues that the assessed discipline was excessive and arbitrary under the circumsi:ances. We agree. The record reveals that the three supervisors failed to i_-::ediatelv enforce the safety rule. Safety is of critical importance to the worker's safety and health that a detected safety infraction should be immediately corrected. Due to the mitigating circumstances present in this case, the penalty of dismissal is excessive and the claimant should be reinstated with seniority unimpaired but without back wages and without the other financial relief requested by the clairant. By reinstating the claimant, this Board is not ratifying the claimant's conduct. On the contrary, upon his return to work, we expect the claimant to scrupulously cbey all safety regulations and to wear all the required safety devices while performing his duties.

 A W A R D

 C7. ;3:.::: ~.~ ~:1,_ '.::: svut only to the extent consistent with our findings.

 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJI'ST^7"C I'
 '.:)_ Second DiVIS1lAI

 Attest: Executive Secretary
 Nation: 1 r ailro:-d AdU~us t-:-,nt Bv,ard

 Iiy _._- . ."'°_.". " z_'"''' _._ '~ _~_'`.wx'°°',_

 ,~.sr'' RQsemarie vrascitz - Administrative Assistant

 Dated a t Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of January, 1981.