Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29423
 :HIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29793
 92-3-91-3-145
 The T~.ird Division Consisted of the regular members and in
 add it_Dn Referee Thomas J. DiLauro when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (CSX Transportation, Inc. (former Louisville ( and `13shvi.lle Railroad Company)

(1) The digmiSsal of B&B Helper J. R. Williams for alleged '*** responsibility in connection wit ... injury sustained ... on July 11, 1990 *** a15® ... ·rit. being accident prone ***' was without just and sufficient cause, ca.pric:ous, in the basis of unproven charges and in vioLation of the Az-eeroent (
(2) AS a co:isequenc- .if the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof, the Claimant Shall he reinstated with seniority and all other rights unimpaired, his record snaLl 'n shall be compensated for ail .rage loss suffered."

 FINDINGS:
The Thir; Division ~: the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the ev:cence, finds that:

 The carrier or carr;ers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are res?ect;vely carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor ACt a; approved June 21, 1934.

 This 4:vision of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

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

 The Claimant was employed as a B&B Carpenter Helper, and he served on the Carrier's CUR Seniority District which was comprised of the territory of the former Clinchfield Railroad Company. The crew to which the Claimant was assigned consisted of a Foreman, a Carpenter, and a Helper. At the time of the incident, I·_ :3s assignee and working under the supervision of a B&B Foreman and a :SB Engineer.
 Form 1 Award No. 29423
 Page 2 Docket No. ·LW-29793
 92-3-91-3-145
 On July 11, 1990, the Claimant's crew was .assigned to build crib
 walls in the vicinity of '9ile Post VB 199.0. The crib walls were being con
 structed by stacking 80 pound bags containing sand and concrete mix in a wall
 at the ends of culverts In a _itch.

 The Claimant and Carpenter were required to unload each eighty pound bag, carry it on an embankmeqt, and lift it over their heads to the Foreman, who placed the bag on the wa:_. About half way through carrying his second load of fifty bags, the -lataant was walking toward the truck. Suddenly, the Claimant felt a 'pain in his :~ck, he dropped the bag, and he fell to his knees in pain. according to the :_aimant, he was eventually diagnosed as having sustained a pulled _igamen
fJnder 33te )f august :3, 1990, the Carrier notified the Claimant he was being chargec wit'i responsibility for the injury sustained on July 11, :990, and with ')eiag acc:Je a prone. By letter dated September 12, 1990, the Claimant was not__izd he wqs teing dismissed from the Carrier's service because he was guilty of ~el
The Orga:iizatlon ~j-.=ends the Carrier's decision to dismiss the Claimant based on Lt; :llegitton : real world situa-_:)n; Ls 2Ytremely difficult, because there are so many variables and outs;,!- infl assigned a value, ,r contr)._ed. Therefore, the Organization maintains the Carrier's statistical comparison of the Claimant's injury record with the Injury records of )ther em it fails to account for a nucDer of variables.

 The Orgaqtzatton malztatns the Carrier did not prove that the Claimant caused his :-,jury on Jul-.- testified that 'iis knees were straight when he picked up the sand bag.
 According to the safe procedure for lifting, the knees should bend and allow the leg muscles, not :he back muscles, to do the work of lifting.

 The OrganizatLoq con=ends the Claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial Hearing. The Organization asserts the Claimant was not provLded with a proper notice of the charges leveled against him, and the Claimant was disciplined for charges not leveled against him.

 The Carrier argued it had no alternative but to dismiss the Claimant. Indeed, the Carrier stated its firm and honest conviction that if the Claimant is permitted to return to service, he will most likely seriously injure )r kill himself and;)r his fel:,~w employees, and such a distinct possibility, simply cannot be :gored.

 With re;oect to the substantive charge, the Board finds that there is sufficient proba::ve ~iLdence In the record to establish that the Claimant Ls guilty of the charge against nim. The Claimant admitted he failed to use proper lifting techniques on the day of the incident.
 Form I Award No. 29423
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29793
 92-3-91-3-145
The Carrier also demonstrated the Claimant is accident prone in that the average railroad employee sustains an average of 0.076 injuries per year. The Claimant far exceeded tnis rate. The Claimant sustained an average of 0.941 injuries per year.

 Further, the Carrier noted the Claimant was injured eight times in the eight years prior t) nt~ :ismissal. When the Claimant's injury record is ~:ompared to those with ,omparable seniority his rate of injury was far greater than those of the other emp:oyees. The other employees averaged one to two injuries over a comparable -_~e period.

 With respect to tie isciplinary action, the Board will not set aside discipline imposed by a ~:arr:er unless Lc Ls unreasonable, arbitrary, .)r capricious. 'third Di;isi rea,uired to retain in its » rjize an employee who cannot, or does not, perform his work with sa;etv t> ',::use:; )r to other employees. Second Division Award 8912. In this case, ::~missai is warranted because the Carrier proved the Claimant's culpabilirv t)r :I-..e present injury, and the Carrier established the Claimant is acc_-,eqc jr,)ne.






Attest:~Pf/~
 Nancy ~. r - 7xecutive Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, LLlinois, _nis 21st day of October 1992.