"If you had exercised proper care and properly complied with Rule 386, this injury could have been avoided. I am therefore, issuing this to you as.a letter of reprimand to be placed on your personal record file."

It is the Carrier's position that the facts of record "clearly establish the Claimant's guilt." Carrier points to the following colloquy between the Hearing Officer and the Roadmaster:

"Q. Have you ever before instructed Mr. Dennis to assist in unloading equipment from machine flats?

A. He has assisted before, yes sir.

Q. Was he knowledgeable how to accomplish the task that you asked him to do that day?

A. Yes sir."

"Q. Did you inspect the cable or pins that he allegedly hurt himself on?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you see anything abnormal about the way it was assembled?

A. No sir."

The Carrier further asserted that had Claimant closely examined the situation he would have realized that "the admitted unconventional tie-down arrangement represented an unusual situation that required extra caution and diligence on his part." Finally, the Carrier submitted that the discipline in this case was "extremely lenient" and was intended to be "corrective rather than punitive."

Claimant offered the following testimony with relation to his injury:

"Q. What were you assigned to do that day? A. To assist in untying the machine.

Q. Had you ever done that task before?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Do you remember how long ago it was?

A. Whenever I was on the rail gang about the

first of the year. I used to you know do it

quite often.

Q. Then you were aware of what tools it would take and how to go about removing it from your own knowledge?

A. Yes, but whenever we, we never used this same procedure, no, even on the rail gang and way up, I never untied one hooked up like this.

Q. When you say hooked up like this I don't understand?

A. The time when I unhooked they always have the right you know hookup. It's the first time I ever attempt to unloosen the cable with the crossing pin wrapped up in the cable is what I'm saying."

The organization maintains that Carrier failed to present "any probative evidence to prove the Claimant violated Safety Handbook Rules 1 or 386." Further, the Organization submits that the Carrier "failed to prove that the Claimant was negligent or responsible for his injury." Finally, the Organization notes that the Roadmaster was not an eyewitness to the incident in question, and in fact, was not even present when Claimant sustained the injury. For the foregoing reasons, the Organization stated that "the Carrier has imposed discipline in violation of the Agreement."

Claimant was injured on Sunday, September 17, 1989, when a cable used to tie down equipment struck him in the left arm. There is no dispute concerning the circumstances of the accident nor any probative evidence, save "Monday-morning quarter-backing" and speculation that he might have avoided injury by seeking assistance. In short, not every accident is a result of negligence and not every injury is a result of carelessness. In that connection, we find the following holding from SBA No. 541, Award 27 on point:

"It may be that Claimant was negligent and should be subjected to discipline but the record, consisting almost entirely of Claimant's testimony, does not adequately establish the necessary facts to support those conclusions. The mere fact that Claimant iniured himself in the course of his work does not Prove that he was sufficiently at fault to merit a suspension, even if due emphasis is given to the absence of any prior accident on the machine in its over 16 years of operation. There is no evidence that Claimant violated specific safety procedures or instructions that he had been given in regard to the operation of the circular saw and no supervisory emolove or other witness presented additional facts to show oreciselv how

As the charging party in this discipline case, Carrier has the burden of proving by substantial evidence that Claimant violated Safety Rules. A thorough and objective analysis of the transcript does not support the charges placed against Claimant. Since the record does not clearly show Claimant was guilty as charged, the reprimand was not reasonable. See Third Division Awards 24336, 22008, 26089, 25600 and 26267. It is the opinion of this Board that the Claimant was not culpable of violating any Safety Rules and that his injury was the result of a regrettable accident for which he cannot fairly be the subject of discipline. Absent any proof of culpability or negligence discipline of this Claimant is arbitrary and cannot stand.

A W A R D