Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 29453
 THIRD DIVISION Docket No. MW-29893
 92-3-91-3-261
 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:

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

 (1) The discipline imposed upon Truck Driver E. Vaca, Jr. and Helper C. R. Weathers for alleged violation of Rules K and M on February 6, 1990 was arbitrary, capricious and in the basis of unproven charges.

 (2) The Claimants s,a11 have their records cleared of the charges leveled against them and t`iey 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.

Claimant Vaca is employed by Carrier as an operator and truck driver. Claimant Weathers is employed as a trackman. On February 6, 1990, Vaca was assigned as truck driver of Truck 30, and Weathers was taken away from his regularly assigned duties on a track gang and assigned as helper to Claimant Vaca. The Claimants were assigned by the Engineer of Maintenance of Way to deliver a bundle of twenty five cross ties to Track Gang 7, working in Carrier's Blue River Yard.
 When Claimants arrived at Tower 9, they drove across Track 402 and headed west on the roadway between Track 402 and Main Line 3. Enroute to the unloading site, they passed Signal 38 RC. Once the cross ties were unloaded, Claimants backed out the way they had come because of limited maneuvering room. In the process of backing out, the rail rack on the rear of the truck caught the ladder on Si3na1 38 RC and damaged both the ladder and the signal. Total damage was estimated to be $1,059.
 Form 1 Award No. 29453
 Page 2 Docket No. MW-29893
 92-3-91-3-261
 By identical letters dated February 8, 1990, both Claimants were
 notified as follows:










The Hearing was postponed and ultimately held on February 27, 1990. Following the Hearing, Claimant Vaca was suspended from Carrier's service for five working days, and Claimant Weathers was suspended for one working day. On March 19, 1990, the Organization appealed the Claimants' discipline. That appeal was subsequently processed up to and including the highest Carrier Officer designated to handle such matters, after which the issue remained unresolved.

 It is the Carrier's position that Claimant Vaca's testimony at the Hearing establishes his culpability for this incident:


Form 1 Award No. 29453
 Page 3 Docket No. MW-29893
 92-3-91-3-261
 the right-hand side, the signal was coming up and I
 cut my tires where I could maneuver around the high
 signal. My left front tire started climbing on top
 of the rail. At that point, it jumped off the rail
 and stopped. My right mirror was close to the
 signal. If I would have proceeded backwards, my
 mirrors would have struck the high signal. To pre
 vent that, I put my truck in forward motion to
 straighten the truck up as much as I could to get a
 better clearance Angle to back out in between that
 roadway back into 405 or track 402.
 c). What happened when you started backing in a
 forward direction?
 A. then I went 1n a forward direction, the back end
 of the truck slid to the right a little bit and the
 rack on the right-hand side must have caught the
 signal because I can't .see the top of that rack out
 of my right side mirror. I can look all the way down
 the side of the truck, but I cannot see the top of
 the rack. So when I moved forward, I didn't know
 that the rack had caught the ladder and pulled it."

 Carrier argues that because Claimant Vaca knave that he had limited vision, he should have instructed Helper Weathers to stand outside.and direct him in order to .:fear the signal.

 The Organization maintains that the weather conditions were such that a minor accident was inevitable in the circumstances. Thus, Claimant Vaca should not be held responsible for road conditions he could not avoid.

 Carrier bases its discipline of Claimant Weathers on the premise that he did not "unite" with Claimant Vaca to protect Carrier's property.

 In light of Claimant Vaca's admission that he knew he could not see the entire truck in his rear or side-view mirrors, the Board finds no reason to overturn Carrier's assessment of discipline in his case. Claimant Vaca's failure to direct Claimant Weathers to stand outside the truck as a "second pair of eyes" outweighs any mitigation of his culpability by existing weather conditions.

 Under the circumstances, however, Carrier's discipline of Claimant Weathers is without foundation. Claimant Weathers title on the day in question was "Helper." He was Accordingly, it was not Claimant Weathers' responsibility to take the initiative in this incident. I assuming that if Claimant Vaca had needed assistance in maneuvering the truck he would have asked for it. !See Third Division Award 19853)
 Form 1 Award No. 29453
 Page 4 Docket No. MW-29893
 92-3-91-3-261




                          By Order of Third Division


Attest:
        cy J. v - Executive Secretary


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