Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11369
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11274
 2-N&W-MA-'87
 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Edwin H. Bean when award was rendered.
 (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
 (Workers
 Parties to Dispute:
 (Norfolk and Western Railway Company

 Dispute: Claim of Employee:

 1. The Norfolk and Western Railway Company violated Section A-1 of the schedule agreement as amended May 1, 1983, but not limited thereto, when it arbitrarily and capriciously disciplined Machinist J. Blade, Jr. by assessing him a thirty (30) day deferred suspension following investigation held on August 21, 1984.

 2. Accordingly, Machinist J. Blade, Jr.'s, record should be cleared of any reference to the discipline.

 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 employee 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 is a Machinist with 18 years of service. As a result of charges dated June 29, 1984, and Hearing held August 21, 1984, Claimant was assessed a 30 day deferred suspension by letter dated September 21, 1984 for failure to display a blue flag.

 On June 21, 1984, Claimant was making repairs to locomotive SOU 2831 on the Carrier's north fuel track at North Kansas City, Missouri. While Claimant was making those repairs, the absence of a blue flag was noticed by a Foreman and a FRA Inspector. The Foreman brought the matter to Claimant's attention and instructed Claimant to immediately display a blue flag. Claimant admits that when he was spoken to by the Foreman and, while making the repairs at that time, he did not have a blue flag on display.

F
 Form 1 Award No. 11369
 Page 2 Docket No. 11274
 2-N&W-MA-'87
 "When workmen are on, under, or between a locomo--40
 tive or rolling equipment coupled to a locomotive
 on either a main track or other than a main line, a
 blue signal must be attached to the controlling
 unit . . . . "
 Upon our review of the record, we must deny the Claim. First, we are
 satisfied that the type of work Claimant was performing brought Claimant with
 in the ambit of Rule 1302(c). Although Claimant was laying on the ground at
 the time he was making the repairs to the engine, he was nevertheless in phys
 ical contact with the unit and such functions appear to fall within the broad
 safety requirements of the Rule. Second, the Organization's argument that
 Claimant's failure to display the signal should be excused because he was
 generally working as part of a group and consistent with prior practice the
 first person working on the unit (usually a laborer) was to display the sig
 nal, must be rejected. The Rule is clear on its face and under the circum
 stances, even assuming that the first person or any individual in the group
 failed to maintain the blue signal, the responsibility for displaying the
 signal belonged to Claimant while he was individually working on a unit re
 quiring a blue signal. Under the circumstances, the fact that the blue signal
 was displayed prior to Claimant's lunch break and was then removed by the time
 Claimant commenced working after his break does not excuse Claimant's respon
 sibility for making certain that the signal was properly displayed while he
 was working on the unit. Third, the failure of the FRA inspector to testify
 about a citation or lack thereof concerning the incident does not require a
 different result in this case. We are concerned with the evidence adduced in ,,
 the record and the specific rule at issue. The testimony of the Foreman and
 Claimant establishes the basis for discipline irrespective of any testimony
 that the FRA inspector might have offered concerning a citation. Upon review
 of the record, we are satisfied that substantial evidence exists to support
 the Carrier's decision to impose discipline because Rule 1302(c) was not fol
 lowed. Finally, we cannot say that the assessment of a 30 day deferred sus
 pension for such conduct is either arbitrary or capricious. Second Division
 Award 10357, Public Law Board No. 3900, Award No. 9.




                            By Order of Second Division


Attest: ,,
        Nancy J.-01~%Ver - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of October 1987.