C:\MYDOCU~1\SCHEDU~2\3-23577.htm

NATIONAL RAILROAD AD,7lIS'f'hIFNT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

John e. LaRocco, Referee

PARTIES 'CO DISPUTE:

(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company

Award Number 23577
Docket Number SG-23832

STATEMBNC OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Conmittee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad:

Appeal of discipline assessed Mr. H. A. Blum, Signal Maintainer, Mullinea, South Carolina, in connection with injury sustained on July 31, 1979. (thirty-day suspension, October 1 through 30, 1979)."

OPINION OF BOA1tD: Claimant, a Signal Maintainer, was assigned (along with two
other maintainers) to replace a damaged pole and to repair
wires at Mulling, South Carolina on July 31, 1979. To properly repair the wires,
Claimant had to cut the wires from a nearby pole. Claimant climbed the pole
and cut the first wire when the pole suddenly snapped at ground level and fell.
Claimant was inured. A post accident examination of the pole disclosed that the
inside had substantially decayed though the exterior was more solid.

On August 14, 1979, the Carrier charged the Claimant with a violation of Rules 1, 13, 692 and 707 of the Safety Rules for Communications and Signals Department employees. Rules 692 and 707 are specifically pertinent to this incident and state:

"692. Poles must be examined before climbing. If in doubt as to strength of pole, the following tests must be made:

Probe below ground line with bar.' ~~ Rock the pole with a pike.

(cs Sound the pole by striking it with a hemmr."

"707. When dismantling or removing wires and cables from po7tas, great care must be taken to see that they are securely giryad or braced if necessary."

After an imvestigaticm, held on August 31, 1979. the Carrier imposed a thirty day suspension on Claimant which he served while off work due to his injury.

Before we address the merits of the claim, we note that the Organization hoe objected to two alleged procedural defects in the August 31, 1979 hearing. Though we have considered the Organization's objections, we conclude that Claimant was provided a fair and impartial investigation pursuant to Ru::e j+7.

The Claimant testified that he made a brief visual inspection of the pole and it appeared sound. As he begun to climb the pole, he also rocked it back and forth and, believing the pole was solid, he then continued to climb.

Award Nimiber

23577

Page

Docket Ntanber

SC-23F332

Claimant end the other two maintainers had observed that the wires atta.:hed to the pole were sagging and thus, the wires were not supporting the pole. Neither of Claimant's coworkers were in position to see what kind of test Claimmt conducte~l before ascending the pole. The Supervisor of Communications and Signaling, who arrived at the scene after the accident, testified that he could not: find any marks showing pole strength had bees tested by any of the methods set: forth in Rule 69a.. Based on this testimony, the Organization contends Claimant complied with all the safety rules because the pole appeared strong and so tl)e tests were not required. The Carrier contends the record contains substantial evidence that Claimant carelessly climbed the pole without first making a complete in:;pection of the pole. Though Rule 692 gives signal maintainers some discretion in inspecting and testing pole sir<·.ngth, the teats are mandatory if there is any doubt regarding the stability of the pole. In this case, the presence of sagging wires should have alerted the Claimant to carefully and completely teat the pole's strength since the wires provided no backup support. Rule 707 also requires additional bracing of the pole especially when wires are sagging. Even though Claimant sincerely perceived the pole to be safe, he carelessly ignored the risks inherent in this situation. Safety rules are designed to educate employees not only to avoid obvious risks but also to recognize, discover and neutralize all potential hazards. Third Division Award No. 22650 (Rookie). The sagging wires and the cursory nature of Claimant's visual inspection demonstrate that he did not fully comply with the applicable safety rules. Since the Carrier is obligated to strictly enforce all safety regulations, we see no reason to adjust the Carrier's assessment of discipline.

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;

That the Carrier and the Employee involved in this dispute arc respectively Carrier and Employee within th,! meaning of the Railway labor Act, as approved June 21, 1931+;

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

That the Agreement was not iiolatc·d.

Axard Number 23577 Page 3

Docket Number SG-23832 A W A R D Claim denied. I ATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division A7TEST: Acting Executive 3ecrcaaty National Railroad Adjnstmeni. Board /~ Y ~semarie Breech - niatra i e ss~istant Dated al, Chicago Illinois this 10th day of March 1982.