F orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT B CARD Award No. 916 7
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9252
2-CR-MA-182
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Albert A. Blum when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists and
Parties to Dispute:
Aerospace Workers
( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation be ordered to remove the discipline
of letter of reprimand from the record of Machinist S. DeTillio.
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 dispute
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act
as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Claimant, S. DeTillio, ate lunch in the cab of a unit that was in a wash
rack. The unit, while he was having lunch, was sprayed with soap. The Claimant
was aware of the soapy surface when he began his descent down the steps of the cab.
He placed his "right hand on handrail starting to turn around and
...
slipped on
the top step and slide (sic) all the way down".
The Carrier feels that the Claimant deserves the letter of reprimand he
received because he violated various safety rules by not taking proper care when
he was climbing down from the cab and by not seeing a doctor right away. The
Organization feels that the Claimant did not violate safety rules in that
although he did not report the injury immediately, he sought medical assistance on
his own that evening, and that he had taken adequate care when he descended by
placing his "foot firmly on the '=op step and by grasping the hand rails".
When descending stairs with a soapy and consequently slippery surface, holding
on to one handrail while turning around on the top step is not taking adequate care.
To a degree, proof of lack of care is the fact that Claimant did indeed fall. If
the Organization is claiming that the Claimant or any other worker with care would
have fallen on such a soapy surface, then employes should not eat in a cab of a
unit in a wash rack when there is a safe lunchroom facility in which he could have
eaten. Past rulings regularly attest to the need of employes to exercise care at
work and that the Carrier has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that such care
is taken (See First Division Award 17047), Third Division Awards 11775 and
14066 and Special Board of Adjustment No. 589, Award No. 152-LE). Consequently,
a letter of neprim~,nd is justified.
F orm 1
Page 2
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No. 9167
Docket No. 9252
2-CR-MA-182
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
o emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of June, 1982.