Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29428
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29867
 92-3-91-3-233
 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Thomas J. DiLauro when award was rendered.

 (Brothernood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


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

 (1) The discipline assessed Crane Operator R. A. Michael, twenty (20) workiag davs' suspensiDn from service, for alleged violation of General Code of Operatinz Rule E-10<9, involving a grade crossing accident on January 17, 1990 was arnnitrarv, capricious, on the basis of unproven charges and disparate (System File C 't15-90/8-00002 CMP).

 (_) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) hereof, Mr. R. .a. Michael shall be paid twenty (20) days' pay and his record shall be cleared ): Lhis incident."

 FINDINGS:
Che 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 Ln 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 Claimant worked as a crane operator, and he was regularly assigned to operate Burro Crane No
In St. Paul, Minnesota, on January 17, 1990, at approximately 8:30 A.M., Burro Crane No. 137 traveled in consist with a lead flat car, the burro crane, another flat car, and a caboose. The conductor/pilot remained in the caboose. As the consist approached the Otto Avenue crossing, the Claimant slowed the consist to one to two miles per hour. The Claimant noted a vehicle approaching from the north. -.hen the vehicle failed to stop, the vehicle collided with the flatcar. The St. Paul Police investigated the accident and issued a citation to the driver of the vehicle for failure to grant the right of way to the train. Drug tests were administered to the Claimant and the driver of the vehicle, and both tests produced negative results.
 Form 1 Award No. 29428
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29867
 92-3-91-3-233

 As a result of the accident, the Carrier notified the Claimant that he was assessed a 20 working day suspension from service as discipline for his alleged violation of General Code of Operating Rule E-1029. General Code of Operating Rule E-1029, (hereinafter referred to as "Rule E-1029"), provides:









After a Hearing, "he Carrier found the Claimant guilty of violating Rule E-1029.

 The Organ:zitinn .-_a;ntains the Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof to provide credible evidence in support of the charges against the Claimant. The Organization znaracterizes the discipline as arbitrary, capricious, and unsubstantiate
The Organization asserts the Carrier's decision to discipline the Claimant was based merely in the fact that the accideit occurred, because the Carrier speculated that the incident would not have occurred had the Claimant insisted the conductor/pilot =lag the crossing.

 The Carrier .isserts _t fulfilled its burden to prove the charges assessed against the Claimant. The Carrier admits Rule E-1029 places all the blame on the Claimant, but the Carrier notes it considers extenuating circumstances in assessing dis entering the crossing as required by Rule E-1029. The Carrier also cites the Claimant's admission that he elected to proceed across the crossing, because he assumed the vehicle would stop.

 The Organization argued the Carrier's decision to hold the Claimant totally responsible for the collision constituted disparate discipline, because the conductor/pilot contained in the General Code of Operating Rules require all employes to ensure "safety is ,)f the first importance in the discharge of duties." Accordingly, Claimant filled to comply with the General Operating Rules by failing to ensure the conductor/pilot provided protection.
 Form 1 Award No. 29428
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29867
 92-3-91-3-233

 With respect to the substantive charge, the Board finds there is sufficient probative evidence in the record to establish the Claimant is guilty of the charge against him.

 The Board initially notes its deference to a carrier to determine whether a claimant exercised reasonable care under the circumstances .

In this case, the record lemonstrates the Carrier produced sufficient evidence to prove the Claimant acted negligently. For example, by his own admission, the Claimant failed to stop tre consist after sighting the vehicle.

 Therefore, the Board rejects the Organization's argument that the Carrier failed to meet its nurden of proof that the Claimant was responsible for the crane acc_2ent (Third Division Awards 21285, 23254, 26874) at a grade crossing (Third-)' vision .awards -1318, 27002) with evidence of speculative hindsight or an accident per se. (First Division Award 22576; PLB No. 4402, Award 22; SBA No. 947, .award o9). The Board also rejects the Organization's argument that the discipline :s unwarranted in this case.

 Although the Board rotes the Organization's ,argument raising the potential culpability of the conductor/ pilot, the Board is unable to assess the disparity argument because the record lacks sufficient evidence concerning the ramifications of the accident for the conductor/pilot. Further

This Board finds the Claimant responsible for his own negligence in this case.

 With respect to the disciplinary action, the Board will not set aside discipline imposed by a Carrier unless it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Third Division Award 26160. The Board finds the discipline assessed in this case to be reasonable under the circumstances. The Board held a suspension _s not unreasonable for a violation of a Safety Rule.
 Form 1 Award No. 29428
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-29867




Therefore, the Board finds a twenty day suspension in this case is reasonable.




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        Nancy _ er - Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, itlinois, this 21st day of October 1992.