Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10950
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 10996
 2-GB&W-F&0-'86
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee T. Page Sharp when award was rendered.
 (International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Green Bay and Western Railroad Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employes:

 1. That in violation of the current Agreement, Laborer J. Tomaschefsky, Green Bay, Wisconsin, was unfairly dismissed from the service of the Green Bay and Western Railroad Company effective August 6, 1984.

 2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to make Mr. Tomaschefsky whole by restoring him to service with seniority rights, vacation rights, and all other benefits that are a condition of employment unimpaired, with compensation for all lost time plus 6% annual interest; with reimbursement of all losses sustained account loss of coverage under Health and Welfare and Life Insurance Agreements during the time held out of service, and the mark removed from his record.

 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 an employee of the Carrier on the evening of July 27, 1984. His conduct on that date led to an Investigation of the same in which he was charged with:
Form 1 Award No. 10950
 Page 2 Docket No. 10996
 2-GB&W-F&0-'86
 used for locomotive inspection, while you were -
 backing Engines 313 and 311 into the Back Shop, and
 your alleged failure to report such damage, which
 occurred at approximately 11:15 p.m. on July 26,
 1984 at Green Bay, Wisconsin while you were in
 charge of the 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Laborer's
 Assignment on July 26, 1984".

 As a result of the facts adduced at the Investigation, together with Clai
 mant's past disciplinary and safety records, the Investigating Officer found
 that the Claimant's responsibility for the damage and his violation of re
 levant Carrier rules had been established and dismissed him from the service
 of Carrier.
 The facts were essentially undisputed. Claimant was performing one
 of his usual duties of moving engines into the roundhouse. He testified that
 he had turned on the lights in the back shop and afterwards had walked the
 tracks in the shop to check for any obstructions. He observed that an arc
 welder-generator was extending over the track. He unplugged it and turned it
 sideways to allow the engines to pass unobstructed.
 He was moving two coupled engines and had his choice of which engine
 to operate the consist from. He chose the back unit. This vantage point
 offered much less vision of the shop than he would have had if he had made the
 choice to operate from the front unit. As he moved the engines into the shop Mof
 he heard the scraping of metal and stopped the engines. He inspected and
 found that he had not allowed sufficient clearance between the engines and the
 arc welder and had consequently run into it. There was extensive damage to
 the welder and some damage to the engine and inspection platform.
 Claimant did not report the damage to anyone. At the Investigation
 he admitted that he knew a Dispatcher and a Trainmaster were on duty. He
 indicated that he intended to report the damage the next morning, but by this
 time it had been discovered.
 Claimant exercised poor judgment in his method of shoving the engines
 and was extremely remiss in not reporting the accident and the damage. If the
 engine had been allowed into service in its damaged condition, Federal Safety
 Rules would have been violated. Nevertheless, an accident of this nature,
 even considering the non-disclosure aspect, would usually not be grounds for
 dismissal.
 The Investigating Officer apparently recognized this in assessing
 discipline. In his dismissal letter he stated:
 "A review of your personnel file shows an uncon
 cerned attitude toward your job, with eleven inci
 dences of tardiness and absence from duty without
 authorization. Your personnel file also indicates
 a disregard for safety. You had eleven personal
 injury reports and three separate incidents invol- Now
 ving property damage".
 Form 1 Award No. 10950
 Page 3 Docket No. 10996
 2-GB&W-F&0-'86

 Although the disciplinary matters were not of the same nature, as stated they exemplify indifference toward his work. Also quite relevant were the incidents of property damage. The Carrier must be allowed at some point in time to assess the totality of the employee's performance to determine whether there appears to be any hope that he will become a satisfactory employee. In the instant case the Carrier has obviodsly made the determination that this employee is not going to change his habits to raise himself to the standard of performance required by the Carrier.

 Given the severity of the infractions in this case and the multitude of offenses in Claimant's history with the Carrier, we could not be justified in substituting our judgment for the judgment of the Carrier.




                            By Order of Second Division


                      00,09 00

Attest: i
        Nancy J D r -Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 6th day of August 1986.