This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
On September 1, 2006, Carrier notified Claimant to appear for a formal Investigation on September 19th which was subsequently postponed until September 20, 2006 concerning the following charge:
This caused a metal fragment to become lodged in your left eye, requiring removal by medical personnel."
On October 6, 2006, Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty as charged and was assessed a Formal Reprimand with the requirement to attend a four hour safety rules class during his regularly scheduled hours.
The facts of the case are that on August 24, 2006, the Claimant while doing grinding work on BM3532 had a piece of metal hit and lodge in his eye.
It is the Organization's position that Claimant was wearing his safety glasses under his welding helmet for eye protection which was in accordance with Safety Rule 42 which states: "Employees must wear approved eye protection while Form 1 Award No. 13956
performing work hazardous to the eyes." Claimant complied with the Safety Rule and the accident was not possible to avoid, therefore, no discipline should have been issued.
It is the position of the Carrier that the Claimant should have been wearing a face shield instead of a helmet because a helmet is not the proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) as required by its Memo of 12/11/1995 which states in part in the first paragraph the following: "All employees using a pedestal grinder or hand grinder and wire wheels will be required to wear eye protection and a face shield." Because Claimant did not abide by safety requirement the discipline should not be disturbed.
The Board has reviewed the transcript and record of evidence and finds that the Carrier is correct when it states that the safety rule requires that when an employee is doing grinding work he is required to wear "...eye protection and a face shield." Claimant even acknowledged that in the future he would wear a face shield when he testified as follows: "Now I guess I would wear a plastic shield." Claimant did not follow Carrier's written instructions as he chose not wear a face shield and because of that he was guilty as charged.
The only issue remaining is whether the Formal Reprimand and the requirement to attend a four hour safety class was an appropriate punishment. The Board finds and holds that the discipline in this instance was appropriate because it was not arbitrary, excessive or capricious. The discipline will not be set aside.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made. Form 1 Award No. 13956