Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29058
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-28489
 91-3-88-3-297
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Gil Vernon 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 Carrier violated the Agreement when, without the benefit of an investigation as contemplated by Rule 12, Section 1, it assessed the arbitrary and harsh discipli effective March 11, 1987 (Carrier's File 870506).

 (2) Mr. C. E. Miner's record shall be cleared of the charges and his seniority rights as a crane operator shall be restored unimpaired."

 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.

The basic facts are undisputed. On March 6, 1987, at approximately 2:00 P.M. while employed as a Machine Operator, the Claimant operated a Burro Crane on the Chester Subdivision near Gorham, Illinois. While traveling with a load suspended from the boom, he allowed the boom to drop and the Burro Crane he was operating thereafter ran over the lead causing damage to the Burro Crane. Following an initial inquiry into the incident, the Claimant was presented with a written "waiver" which he signed. In this document he elected to waive his Agreement rights to a formal Investigation under Rule 12, Section 1 of the Schedule Agreement and accept discipline for his responsibility in the above descri day deferred suspension and disqualification on all Burro Cranes or any type of crane machine as long as he is employed as a Machine Operator.
 Form 1 Award No. 29058
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-28489
 91-3-88-3-297

 The issue presented by this case is whether the Claimant singularly and without participation of the organization can waive his right to an Investigation under Rule 12. matter of policy, the Organization's arguments are very persuasive. However, there are two factors that compel the denial of the claim. First, there is an unrebutted assertion made by the Carrier of an overwhelci..ig practice of employees accepting waiver Board No. 279, Award 30 on the property between these same parties.






                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:NancJy r~er .
                  - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of November 1991.