Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 26855
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-26794
 88-3-85-3-550
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Marty E. Zusman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The fifteen (15) days of suspension imposed upon Truck Driver J. W. Turner for alleged violation of Rule 'H' was excessive (System File NEC-BMWE-SD-982D).

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

 The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Claimant was involved in an automobile accident on May 18, 1984 and was subsequently charged with alleged violation of Rule H which states in pertinent part:

After two postponements, Trial was held on June 26, 1984. By letter of July 11, 1984, Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty of violating said Rule and was given a fifteen (15) day suspension.

 The transcript indicates that the Claimant had dropped off employees from an AMTRAK van shortly after twelve noon. Claimant thereafter found it necessary to back the van up after he could not make a safe northward turn. Immediately upon reverse movement Claimant's van impacted a car driven by another employee.
 Form 1 Award No. 26855
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-26794
 88-3-85-3-550

 The Organization argues on the property that the other employee
 shared some "culpability." It further proposed reasons why said accident was
 a "set up" and argued about the Organization's significant doubts as to the
 damage and story of the other employee involved.

 A complete review of the record as handled on the property indicates that Claimant did back his AMTRAK van into the other vehicle. Whatever precautions he took were insufficient to avoid damage to Company property. The Board finds no probative evidence to substantiate any of the Organization's claims. There is no other employee. The two Accident Reports do not support this assertion. Nor is there any evidence to substantiate the Claimant's beliefs that he was "set up." On the whole of the record there is adequate evidence to find that the Claimant is guilty as charged.

 The only thing left for this Board to decide is whether the discipline assessed is progressive a offense. The Board finds nothing in the record that indicates that this is anything other than Claimant's first offense. Claimant states in the record that he was unsure as to procedures because he had "never been involved in an accident."

 The Board finds that the discipline assessed was excessive in light of the record before this Board. Claimant's discipline shall be reduced to ten (10) days with Claimant compensated for wage loss.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest: , T
 Nancy J er - Executive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of February 1988.