Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 28503
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28929
 90-3-89-3-342
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Barry E. Simon 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 dismissal and subsequent disciplinary disqualification of Track Foreman E. J. Baggett for alleged failure to protect track structure from dangerous conditions on July 7, 1988 was arbitrary, capricious, without just and sufficient cause and on the basis of unproven charges (System File MW-88-148/474-30-A SPE).

 (2) The Claimant shall be reinstated as a track foreman with seniority and benefits unimpaired, against him and he shall be compensated for all wage loss suffered."

 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.

On the afternoon of July 7, 1988, Claimant was advised of engine burns on main line trackage. After inspecting the burns, Claimant called the dispatcher and placed a 10 mile per hour slow order on the track. He had his crew repair the track the following day. On July 12, 1988, Claimant was removed from service pending properly protect the track from dangerous conditions and his failure to notify his Supervisor. The Investigation was held on July 27, 1988, at which time Claimant testified that he thought the track was safe for a slow order on July 7, but needed to be taken out of service the next day because "(t]he track structure had deteriorated to a maximum that is getting unsafe and [he] decided that (he) did not wa until it was repaired." Claimant also testified that the engine burns had not gotten any worse overnight.
 Form 1 Award No. 28503
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28929
 90-3-89-3-342

 Claimant was dismissed from service effective August 2, 1988. On November 28, 1988, the Carrier sent Claimant a letter advising him that the discipline had served its purpose and he was offered reinstatement. The letter went on to advise him that he was disqualified from all supervisory positions because of his past record of his inability to perform satisfactorily as a Foreman and Ass seniority only to positions which did not require him to supervise other employees, Claimant did not
The Carrier asserts that Claimant's disqualification as a Supervisor is independent of the disciplinary action and was the result of its exercise of discretion granted by Article 8 of the Agreement, which governs promotion and demotion. In light of the circumstances in this case, we do not agree. Claimant was never permitted to return to service as a Foreman. His reinstatement, therefore, was co with seniority, and all other benefits restored intact." The Claim, therefore, is for Claimant's rei denial of this Claim states: "As the discipline assessed and the disqualification were justified, th As we understand the Carrier's position, we conclude that Claimant's disqualification was part of th
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Carrier's conclusion that Claimant failed to take the track out of service when the defect was first discovered and further failed to notify his Supervisor. According to the testimony, the engine burns were as serious on the day they were discovered as they were when the track was repaired the following day. The repairs, therefore, should have been made when the defects were first discovered. Furthermore, Claimant testified that he did not make any effort to notify his Supervisor of the condition of the track other than an attempt to call him at the office. His responsibility to inform the Supervisor did not end there.

 Because of the seriousness of Claimant's offense, we do not agree that the Carrier improperly withheld him from service pending Investigation.

 Claimant's failure to take the appropriate actions certainly warranted discipline. Permanent disqual the circumstances. Accordingly, we direct that Claimant's seniority as a Foreman and Assistant Foreman be restored and that he be allowed to exercise such seniority as positions become available.


Form 1 Award No. 28503
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-28929
 90-3-89-3-342
 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 By Order of Third Division

 Attest: -

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of August 1990.