(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
 of Railroad Signalmen on the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company:

 On behalf of Signal Maintainer E. J, Markle who was dismissed April 4, 1975 for restoration to his former position and paid for ail time lost with seniority, vacation and all other rights unimpaired.

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose when the Carrier dismissed
 Claimant E. J. Markle from its service following an investigation into its charge that he had failed to make proper tests and inspections after underground track wires had been cut and
 repaired on March 11, 1975, all in violation of certain of Carrier's !
 Rules*and Regulations for the Maintenance of Way and Structures. At the
 investigation the Carrier made a showing that the work in question,
 performed by the Claimant, did permit the displaying of a clear
 signal at Conroe, Texas, when in fact a track switch was open, setting
 up a hazardous, unsafe condition.
 i
 The Organization has shown that Mr. Markle, a very young employe, was in some doubt about how to test the work in question and sought the advice of his supervisor. Claimant apparently followed the instructions of his Supervisor as he understood them, but still did not detect the error in his work. The Organization's representative on the property suggested that the instructions given Claimant were incomplete and defective.
We make no judgment on the competence of the Supervisor because we have not been presented sufficient evidence. We do, however, rote that the work performed by Claimant was defective and the
 'consequences potentially serious; hence, Carrier has made a prima facie case for severe disciplinary action. We must. also note that Mr. Markle made an apparently sincere effort to acquire competent guidance in hopes of preventing what nevertheless happened. We finally note that the record does not establish that Claimant Markle had otherwise been an undesirable employe.
 Award Number 21800
 Docket Number SG-21862

 Hence, while we do not condone unsafe workmanship, we find the discipline administered here to be excessive. We therefore order that the Claimant be forthwith reinstated in Carrier's service with seniority and related rights restored, but without pay for time lost.

        FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:


That the parties waived oral hearing;

 Page 2

        That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute

are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway
 Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934; -

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

 That the discipline was excessive.

 A W A R D
Claim sustained per Opinion and Findings.

 ATTEST:
        Executive Secretary


NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of November 1977.