Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29407
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29591
 92-3-90-3-549
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Seaboard Coast Line ( Railroad)

(1) The thirty (30) day suspension imposed upon Mr. E. Johnson for alleged violation of Rule 707 (E) of the CSX Transportation Operating Rules on September 25, 1989 was arbitrary, capricious and excessive [System File EJ89-58/12(89-998) SSY].

 (2) As a consequence of the aforesaid violation, Mr. E. Johnson shall be allowed the remedy in Rule 39, Section 5, i.e., his record shall be cleared of the charge 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.

 Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

 On the date in question, Claimant was assigned as a Bridge Foreman supervising mainline work at Milepost SP 762.2 under the protection of Work Authority No. 16052 issued under the provisions of Rule 707. Rule 707 reads in pertinent part:
Form 1 Award No. 29407
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29591
 92-3-90-3-549
 These signs must be placed in the direction of
 approach to the right of each track affected prior
 to the effective time of the work authority and
 promptly removed when the work authority expires or
 has been canceled.
 (e) The employee in charge must clear and be
 reported clear of the track before expiration of
 the authorized time limit. Before releasing the
 track, the employee in charge must ascertain that
 the track is safe for train movement and that all
 OTE, other equipment and trains that have entered
 the work limits are clear of the limits, unless
 other arrangements are made with the train
 dispatcher. If the track is not clear and safe for
 train movement, the employee in charge must obtain
 a new authority from the train dispatcher not less
 than 5 minutes before the expiration of the time
 authorized on the work authority, or have a flagman
 in ?lace the distance prescribed in Rule 99-E, 5
 minutes before the expiration time."

 The Work Authority issued to Claimant encompassed 10:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., the time during which he was authorized to "foul" the track without flag protection. At approximately 3: approaching the work site. He then called Claimant on the radio and asked him how long his Work Authority was effective. When Claimant responded that it expired at 3:00 P.M., the Production Gang Foreman called Train 602 and told it to stop short of :he crossing near Milepost 765. Claimant used his own portable radio to assure that
By letter of October S, 1989, Claimant was notified to appear for a Hearing and charged as follows:


Form 1 Award No. 29407
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29591
 92-3-90-3-549

 Following the Hearing held on October 13, 1989, Claimant was assessed thirty days' actual suspension. The discipline was appealed by the Organization on December 8, 1989, and properly progressed on the property. It was also discussed in conference on Ap Accordingly, it is properly before the Board for resolution.

 A review of the record before the Board indicates that during the Hearing Claimant admitted to "overlooking" the expiration time of his Work Order. Accordingly, there is no question that he failed to clear the track in a timely manner. Thus Carrier clearly had cause for administering some measure of discipline. The sole remaining issue is whether the discipline assessed was excessive, ar The Organization maintains that in light of Claimant's good employment record, a thirty day suspension is inappropriately severe in this case, particularly since Train 602 did stop in time and no employees or equipment were harmed. Carrier notes that nad the Production Gang Foreman not alerted Claimant to the oncoming train, or had the train not been able to stop in time, the results could have been very serious.

 Carrier's considerable concern for matters of safety is not unreasonable. In light of the potential "overlooking" the expiration of his Work Order, the quantum of discipline imposed upon Claimant was







Attest: _- 644
      Nancy J. r - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, =llinois, this 17th day of September 1992.