PARTIES TO DISPUTE:




That Leading Signalmen W. P. Bath be paid for all time lost due to five day actual suspension assessed for his alleged violation of Carrier Safety Rules 1041 and 1002 on the dates of June 5th and 18th, 1980."

OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was assessed a five-day suspension as a penalty
for violation of Safety Rules by failure, while at nw k as a
Lead Signal Maintainer, to wear a hard hat on two occasions and a shirt on a
third occasion.

The Organization contends that the penalty was unjustified, because the hard hat rule was rendered "almost inoperative" through "loose enforcement" and the shirt requirement did not exist.

We find clear support in the record for the hard hat charge. The Claimant has admitted that he failed to wear his hard hat in knowing disregard of the rule and of his Supervisor's direct instructions.

We do not, however, find sufficient support in the record to sustain the charge of rule violation with respect to the failure to wear a shirt. The rule the Carrier relies upon requires employes to be "suitafy clothed" for safe performance of duties and specifically regulates the kind of clothing that may safely be worn. In our view, the regulation as to shirts specifies what is the suitable way a shirt can safety be worn at work. It does not affirmatively require that a shirt actually be worn as a safety measure.

The sole issue remaining is whether the five-day penalty for the violation of the hard hat rule alone was fair and reasonable on the evidence shown. We conclude that it was not. While affirming, once again, the compelling importance of compliance with safety rules, we nevertheless believe, in view of the Claimant's-32 years of service without any evidence of prior discipline, that a three-day suspension is appropriate. Our Award will so provide.







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 in accordance with the Opinion.


                            NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

        Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of March 1983,

                                              ~o

                                              3

                                              NM~ m


                                                    0


                                            Chtco9o