Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10838
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10956
 2-NRPC-MA-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee T. Page Sharp when award was rendered.
 (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
 ( Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 (National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) violated Rule 24 but not limited thereto of the Controlling Agreement when they dismissed Machinist M. Badzmierowski account of alleged violations of Carrier Rules of Conduct "A", "F", "H", "I", and "Y". Claim is made to restore claimant to service, and compensate him for all pay lost up to the time of his restoration to service at the prevailing Machinists rate of pay.

 2. That Machinist Badzmierowski be compensated for all insurance benefits, vacation benefits, holiday benefits and any other benefits that may have accrued and were lost in this period and otherwise made whole for all losses in accord with the prevailing agreement dated September 1, 1977, subsequently amended.

 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 Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

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

Claimant was a Machinist in the employ of Carrier on December 7, 1983, when his conduct on that date led to an Investigation in which he was charged with:


Form 1 Award No. 10838
 Page 2 Docket No. 10956
 2-NRPC-MA-'86
 Rule "F" states: Safety is of first importance in
 the discharge of duty and in cases of doubt or
 uncertainty, the safe course must be taken.
 Employees shall comply with safety regulations and
 must exercise care to prevent injury to themselves
 or others. Employees will not be retained in the
 service who are careless of the safety of
 themselves or others.
 Rule "H" states: Employees must take every
 precaution to guard against loss and damage to the
 company property from any cause.
 Rule "I" states: Employees will not be retained in
 the service who are insubordinate, dishonest,
 immoral, quarrelsome or otherwise vicious or who do
 not conduct themselves in such a manner that the
 company will not be subjected to criticism or loss,
 of good will.
 Rule "Y" states: Employees must obey instructions
 from their supervisor in matters pertaining to
 their respective branch of the service and
 employees whose duties require them to conform with
 instructions issued by various departments must
 familiarize themselves therewith and be governed
 thereby .
 . . . in that during your tour of duty on December
 7, 1983, you signed.work reports to the effect that
 you had checked the traction motor suspension bear
 ings for water on locomotives 305, 310, 330 and
 375, signed work reports indicating no water was
 present when in fact water was present in certain
 traction motors and particular locations thereon."

 As a result of the evidence adduced at the Investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the charges had been proved and based on this and Claimant's prior disciplinary record, dismissed him from service effective January 18, 1984. Claimant was reinstated on a leniency basis on April 13, 1984. This Claim is for pay and benefits lost between the date of discharge and the date of reinstatement.

 On December 8, 1983 some five Carrier employees were involved in the final inspection of the locomotives for Trains 5 and 7, scheduled to depart Chicago on that date. Their uncontroverted testimony is that water was found in the oil wells of these locomotives. Their additional testimony was that the plugs used to drain and check the oil in the wells had grease and dirt around their perimeter, indicating that they had not been recently touched with a wrench. One witness testified that he had observed one plug having to be removed with a 14-inch pipe wrench. It was suggested that the force generated by the wrench would have not been necessary if the plug had been loosened the day before.
 Form 1 Award No. 10838
 Page 3 Docket No. 10956
 2-NRPC-MA-'86

 Claimant testified that he had diligently checked the wells on the preceding day and had observed no water therein. It was established that the weather was cold and that ice and snow would accumulate on the engines and could eventually result in water running into the wells.

 The evidence, except for the denial of malfeasance by the Claimant, was all inferential. The inference of the Carrier's evidence is that it is unlikely that water would seep into and accumulate in the wells from one day to the next. Also the evidence infers that placement of a wrench on the plugs would result in the removal of grime and dirt from the perimeter of the plug. The inference presented by the Claimant is that the snowy conditions made it likely that water seeped into the wells.

 Much of the evidence in most Investigations is inferential and decision makers frequently make judgments based on inferences. Only when an intervening cause greatly weakens the conclusions drawn from inferences should the judgment of the decision maker be disturbed. If there had been a lengthy interval of time between the inspection of Claimant and the discovery of the water, it would be difficult to sustain the inference that his neglect was the cause of the condition. However, in this case there was a very short period of time. The same conclusion can be drawn by the condition of the plugs. We find that the Investigating Officer was justified in concluding that the wells had not been recently inspected.

 Failure to remove water from traction motor suspension bearings is a serious offense. In the extreme, such failure can lead to a restriction of lubrication to the bearing which can cause overheating of the bearing and could eventually result in a derailment of the locomotive. The Carrier was justified in treating the offense as a serious matter. We think it correctly corrected its assessment of the penalty of dismissal. The time out of service served by the Claimant was sufficient penalty for the offense.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: l 49
 Nancy J. AlKr - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of April 1986.