Form 1 NATIONAL R-kILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29438
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29017
 92-3-89-3-440
 The Third Division Consisted of the regular members and in
 addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.

 PARTIES TO DISPUTE : (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim ,D_ -he System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

 (1) The discipline imposed upon Track Inspector B. Espinoza for alleged responsiDillty in connection with alleged head-on collision between motor cars, resui=ing in damage to motor cars and personal injuries, on August 1, 1988 was arbitrary, capricious, on the basis of unproven and disproved charges and in violation of _ze Agreement (System File D-88-19/MW-15-88).

 (2) The :laimarnt shall be returned to service with seniority and all other rights unimpaired and shall be compensated for wage loss suffered in accordance with Rule 18."

 FINDINGS:
The Third Division D= the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds =.-at:

 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 js approvea :une 21, 1934.

 This Division of t.^.e .adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved 'herein.

The Claimant, a Track Patrolman, was operating an on-track motor car eastward between Range and 5ond, Montana. While doing so, the Claimant states that he was traveling slowly enough to inspect track. A Signal Maintainer was operating a motor car westward on the same track. At Mile Post 145.5, the two motor cars collided, resulting in the destruction of one motor car and severe damage to the ot:^er car.

 Based on the incident, the Claimant was subject to an investigative Hearing, following which he -as dismissed from service for his "responsibility" for the col_ision. T eight months later, restoring the Claimant to duty as a Section Laborer without backpay. Intervening offers of leniency reinstatement based on no further progression of the Claim were not accepted and are of no consequence to the merits of =he Claim before the Board. The Claim is for restoration to service with full backpay.
 Form 1 Award No. 29438
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29017
 92-3-89-3-440

 The record indicates that the Claimant did not see the oncoming car until just before the point of impact, while the operator of the other car observed the Claimant's car in sufficient time to apply his brakes. The Organization contends, however, that the Claimant was at work inspecting track, that the rails may have been greased and therefore slippery, and that the track did not provide an extended view. On these bases, the Organization argues that the occurrence ,>f the collision was not the Claimant's responsibility.

 The Board finds that some responsibility must rest with the Claimant, based on his failure to be f,'ly alert as to an oncoming car. The Carrier recognized that iismissal was inappropriate in that it unilaterally restored the Claimant during the claim handling procedure. The resulting penalty was, in the Board's view, unduly harsh. The Award will direct that the disciplinary suspension be -educed straight-time pay beyond such 30 days. The Board will not, however, question the Carrier's judgment in removing the Claimant from his Track Patrolman position.






Attest:
        Fancy J. - Executive Secretary


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