NATIONAL RAILROAD AWM74ENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION

 Rodney E. Dennis, Referee

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employee
 (
 (Missouri-3ansas-Texas Railroad Company

 Award. Humber 24391
 Docket Humber w-24336

 STAMM OF CLAM "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The thirty (30) calendar days suspension imposed upon Ralph M. Rainey far 'alleged rule violation when you were blowing holes with cutting torch in rail to place angle bars on broken rail July 1, 1980' was unwarranted and wholly disproportionate to such charge (System Film 200-163/25r9-23).

 (2) The claimant shall be compensated for all wage lose suffered."

man, was working near Pryor, Oklahoma, on July 2, 1980s when he burned holes in m rail with a cutting torch in order to facilitate a broken rail repair. On July 11, 19802 Aalmat was-instructed to appear for a formal hearing into the matter. Carrier alleged that this act constituted a violation of Rule
"Employees who are careless is the safety of themselves or ethers, indifferent is the performance of their duties, insnbosdimte...vill not be retained in the service.*

 A hearing vas held in the natter an Ju1,y 21, 1980. Claimant vas found guilty as charged and assessed a 30-calendar-day suspension. The transcript of that hearing has been made a pert of this record.

 A review of the record reveals that Claimant was afforded a fair mad impartial hearing and that he was$ is fart, guilty of not following orders. While tam wader not to barn holes in rails given to Rainey by Roedmaster Ilslip may not have been communicated is the politest farms, Aalip made his point. Claimant knew that he was not supposed to males repairs to rails by burning ho regardless o! the delay caused by having to obtain me.

 This Hoard, hate, fools that even though Claimant Wee is violation of as order, he did utilize the procedure of burning holes is a broken rail to facilitate s repair. He allowed a switch engine to proceed sad tam rail was changed out the next day without hi to do it.


This Board does not condone using short cuts in bonsfide procedures to get a job done, but it does feel that Carrier could sake its point in this case with a such lover level of discipline than a 30-day suspension.

 In Light of Claimant's unblemished recd, his years of service, and his obvious desire to keep the railroad running, we think that a 15-calendar day suspension would be more than adequate to get Maissat's attention on this point.



That the Carrier and the Aaployes involved la this dispute are respectively Carrier and Baplayes within the meaning of the Railway Iabar Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

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






                          By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Emseutive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 B
        IL1

        Rosemarie Bremen - Administrative Assistant


Dated at cmioago, niimis, this 26th day of airy 1983.

                                      .e~CEIVED

                                                ~.


                                      'U~ 2~ 19~ )~


                                    Ch. coge OM - /4