Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10200
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10170
 2-CR-14A-' 85
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Hyman Cohen when award was rendered.
 ( International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 ( Consolidated Rail Corporation
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation be ordered to remove from the
 record of Machinist G. Patton the two day suspension for allegedley '
 (sic) violating Safety Rule 4008, in accordance with the provisions
 of Rule 7 A-1 (e) of the prevailing Agreement effective May 1, 1979.
 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 employes within the meaning of the Rail way. Labor Act as approved June 2, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


During his tour of duty on May 1, 1983, the Claimant Machinist slipped on oil, while inspecting an engine, causing him to lose five (5) days work. He was given a two (2) day deferred suspension for violating Safety Rule 4008 which provides as follows:


The record discloses that the Claimant could not remember the engine that he was inspecting on May 1, 1981 when he injured himself. He "thought" he was on "Track 7^ at the time but he did not know that there was oil on "Spot 1, Track 7". Asked if he was looking in the direction that he was going, the Claimant replied, "1 think I was". He also indicated that he did not remember whether he was "inspecting" as he was "walking".
 Form 1
 Pa ge 2
Award No. 10200
 Docket No. 10170
 2-CR-MA-185
The Claimants failure to remember essential details as well as indicating what he thought he did concerning the circumstances surrounding the accident leads to the inference that he was responsible for causing the injury to his back. Accordingly, the Board infers that the Claimant failed to exercise care and diligence in the performance of his duties on may 1, 1983. Put another way, the inference to be drawn from his own testimony, is that he. did not comply with the standard of due care and diligence, in looking ahead, while walking and staying "clear of opening or tripping, falling or slipping hazard". Accordingly, he violated Safety Rule 4008.
The accident on May 1, 1983 is not of such a nature that it can be said, in light of past experience, that in all probability it was the result of the negligence by the Carrier. Indeed, given the cause of the Claimant's injury, it could be said to be due to his own actions. In and of itself, the fact of an injury sustained by an employee does not exonerate him from fault or warrant the conclusion that he was at fault. Where an employee fails to exercise care for his own safety while walking, looking ahead and staying clear of an opening or,tripping, he violates Safety Rule 4008. In light of the events of May 1, 1983, the Claimant is required to disclose how he sustained his injury. He failed to do so in this case.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest:

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 9th day of January 1985.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Second Division