'._ - NATIONAL RAZROAD ADJOST4mr BOARD
 Award Number 244 8
 THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-2583






        On behalf of Assistant Sigaalvan K. E. Soper,, Everett., Washington,, for payment of all time lost from January 10.. 1981.. through February 8., 1981, and any reference to investigation held December 9 1980 be cleared from his personal record." (General. Chairman file: SP-81-244. Carrier file: SI-81-5-21)


        OPINION OF BOARD: By letter dated September 16, 1980 Claimnntp assistant signal

        man K. E. Soper received notice to attend investigation on

        September 23j, 1980 to ascertain facts and determine his responsibility, if anys

        in connection with company vehicle striking overhead bridge at about 1:30 FM on

        September 9, 1980 at Albanyp Oregon. Mr. J. S. Seever., signal foreman., received

        notice to attend the same investigation. After postponements., the investigation

        vas held on December 9. 1980 after which Claimant received by certified mail on

        January 2., 1981 assessment of discipline of thirty (30) days actual suspension

        from service for violation of Carrier Safety Rules., Form 15001.- 535 (d)r (e)

        and. (f). Signal fern Seaver van acquitted of any responsibility of the inci

        dent at bar. Rules allegedly violated. by Claimant read. in pertinent part:


                        "535 (d): Drivers must fasten safety belts and insist that say passengers do likewise.


                        (e): Drivers must exercise care to prevent accident and and injury to driver and others by observing all. conditions.


                        (f): DriTer must comply with legal posted apeeds,0 signs and signalsy and, make complete stops at all. stop signs."


        The reward before the Beard shws that claimant was driving a vehicle, Boas Truck No. 11613, which was presumed to have a height of lo'1". In fact however, the record shws that no one associated with this incident knew exactly how tall the truck was and Claimants own impression that the height of the truck was "in the neighborhood of 10 feet" appeared to be a common consensus. In this respect it is not only the obligation of employees to avoid contravention of

. Safety Rules,, but it is also the obligation of the Carrier to provide a safe work
        environment wherein the obedience of such Rules are to the advantage of both em

        ployee and the company. That the Cgrrier was remiss in carrying out this duty

Award Number 244 8

Docket Number SG-2583


Page 2

 is witnessed by the fact that the vehicle in question was not marked with a height sign. The Board also notess in a review of the record before its a laxity on the part of the Carrier in enforcing the Rules as this relates to seat belt usage. A Carrier cannot justifiably request the Board to apply stricto dicto interpretation to its Rules of Conduct when it is a question of assessing substantial evidence in a case when such application is contrary to Carrier's own past Carrier laxity in clearly marking the height of the vehicle in question which sustained damage; in the implementation of Rule 535(x) related to the use of seat belts; and in testing its employees on the meaning and significance of Safety Rules. gotten an accurate measurement of the height of the truck; he could have taken the initiative to have worn a seat belt while driving the truck; and he could have attempted to negotiate a different route than the underpass where the accident occ present. While culpable in past, Claimant is not culpable in a whole for the accident which occurred. Some of the responsibility for the accident which occurred on September 9s 1980 must be shared by the Carrier. Discipline is reduced to a 15 day suspension., and payment limited to actual loss., if any, during the remaining 15 days.

        FINDMS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board... upon the whole record and all the evidences, finds and holds:


That the parties waived oral hearing;

 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

 over the dispute involved herein; and

 The discipline was excessive.

 Claim sustained in accordance with the Opinion.

NATIONAL RAILROAD AWUS2MKT

8y Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 By I -,~Lts.~
 Rosemarie rag ech Adiainistrat ve Ass stn

 Dated at Chicago Illinois this 29th day of June 1983.