The Second Division or the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier car carriers and the employe or vmployes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier anti employes within thv meaning of the Railway Tabor Act as approved Juno 21 , 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board teas jurisdiction over ttw dispute involved herein.
The Claimant has been employed by the Carrier as a machinist in its foundry located at Roanoke, Virginia, since April 12, 1971. As a result of an investigation held on September 29, 1981 in which he was charged with violation of Safety Rule General Notice D, the Claimant vas dismissed from service hecarse of an injury he sustained on AuTust il, 1981 and his persistence in follnwins= unsafe work practices. Safety Rule Ccneral Notice D provides as follows:
Can August 11, 1981, the Claimant injured a finger on his right hand while performing the task of straightening several gauge rods lying on a pallet. Although lie reported his injury to Supervisor Austin on August 11 , the Claimant believed that the in;iiry did rot warrant medical attention. A formal report of the injury was siihriJtted by the Claimant on August 21, when he requested medical attention. Due to the in;ury, the Claimant lost time from work.
The record discloses that there is at least 1 1/2 inches clearance hetwor->n the rods positioned on the pallet. Thus if the Claimant grasped the rods as lie said he did on August 11 , he could not have caught his finger between the rod lie handled and the rod that had h>een placed on the pallet.
The Board's conclusion with regard to the Claimant's conduct on August 11 is intertwined with the second aspect of the Carrier's charge, namely, that.since his date of hire, the Claimant has persisted in following unsafe practice;. After roughly W yea rs of service (through August L l , 1981) the record discloses that the Claimant sustained 7 injuries, h of which occurred since 1976. It should h<, noted that any injury suffered ny the Claimant after August 11, 1981 is not relevant to the instant case. A random samvting of 20 machinists, who averaged 15.7 years of service show average yearly in iiiries which are substantially less than thc> average yearly injuries of the Claimant.
In L97y, the Claimant was coirnselecl "concerning violation of Rule 1')41" ancj "there was a srrnervisor's review" mado of his "sat c~ty record". Such counsF-ling and review of the Clairant's safety recorc' do not rise to the level of discipline which is sufficient to indicate to the Claimant that if his conduct did not change, he wocild l>e dismissed Irom service. In other words, the Cirri or did not apply the principle of corrective discipline to the Claimant. This principle requires tt--at the employer withhold the final nonalty o: cismissal from vrr;lnt employees until it has been established that the employee is not likely to respond favorably to a lesser penalty.
Furthermore, in reviewirw the Claimant's entire record, the Board cannot conclude that leis performance "represents a pattern of unreasonable risk to its operations, its personnel and to the Claimant, if it were to continue the Claimant in its employ." See Public Law Board No. 550, Award No. 100. At the same time, it mist he underscored that the Claimant's conduct on August 1.1
19111, along with leis accident freniiency cannot he minimized. It seems clear that the Carrier has a responsibility to the employees, to the general public and to itself to guard against unnecessary hazards and risks. The record of the Claimant's injuries i5 more than sufficient to demonstrate that the Claimant has been negligent iii the ncrforrnance or his work. The Foard !-)elieves that the Claimant needs "a more pointed warning than his in iuries seemed to have given hi m" . Set: Second ?)i vi s i on Award No. 5205. The penalty i mposod by the Carrier is believed excessive, and it is the Board's judgment that the Claimant be reinstated without hack pay.