Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
 THIRD DIVISION
 Award No. 32986
 Docket No. MW-34030
 98-3-97-3-543

 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Martin H. Malin when award was rendered.

 (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (former ( Burlington Northern Railroad)

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:






FINDINGS:

 The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

 The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
 Form 1 Award No. 32986

 Ponc 7 Toc1.et A7 __ 14"77 ~ Anon
 s "6" °' LV~AG41·V. 1VIYV-J'fUJU



On May 9, 1996, Claimant was injured while guiding a tie that was being moved with a boom into position. On May 15, Claimant was notified to appear for an Investigation on May 21 concerning his alleged responsibility concerning the incident which led to his injury. The Investigation was held as scheduled. On June 18, 1996, Claimant was advised that he had been found guilty of violating Rule 1.1.2 and was suspended for ten days.


The Organization maintains that Claimant was not given a ffair Hearing because the same Carrier official issued the Notice of Investigation, served as Hearing Officer and assessed the discipline. The Organization further contends that Carrier failed to prove a violation of Rule 1.1.2 by substantial evidence. Carrier argues that it afforded Claimant a fair Investigation and that it proved the violation by substantial evidence.


The Board has reviewed the record carefully- We are not nenclluded by the Organization's procedural argument. The General Gang Roadmaster issued the Investigation notice, served as Hearing Officer and assessed the discipline. However, neither the Organization nor the Claimant took any exception to the General Gang


D ....Uw....tU ._ TT_ AM

W VdlUlIlA3LG1 Jet Vlng as nearing muter prior to or during the investigation. Furthermore, it is apparent from the record that the General Gang Roadmaster was not directly involved in the incident under investigation. Accordingly, we reject the Organization's contention that Claimant's due process rights were violated.


Turning to the merits, we find that Carrier proved the Rule violation by substantial evidence. The evidence established that Claimant was injured when he


Qra.cned a tie that was heinn ,eninarlod .-.;*h *ho h- 7 a**o-*oa * ..ia.:Ao ;* :.,*_
 a_ _l. __. _._ _____ _ , b . ua a.a vvv wa.,a u ,.a Nw,e iv ~wa, a ,nw
 place. The evidence further established that the Truck Driver had instructed Claimant
 to stay away from the ties as they were being unloaded and to wait until they touched
 the ground before guiding them into place. Instead, Claimant grasped the tie when it
 was chest high., Furthermore, the Foreman testified .that he had instructed the
 employees not to grasp a tie until it was waist high because of difficulty controlling ties
 when they are above the waist. Thus, the evidence established that Claimant, on his
 own, decided to 2raSD the tie before it had reached the ornnnd_ dicreoardina the Trllelr
 Driver's instructions, and when it was above waist high, disregarding the general
 instructions of the Foreman.
 Form 1 Award No. 32986
 i age 3 Docket No. MW-34030
 98-3-97-3-543

The Organization contends that these facts do not prove Claimant violated Rule 1.1.2. Rule 1.1.2 provides: "Employees must be careful to prevent injuring themselves or others. They must be alert and attentive when performing their duties and perform their work to avoid injury." We believe that Rule 1.1.2 is broad enough to encompass Claimant's grasping the tie when he should not have and arasninn 'et .,h.-

high P:a~ too

 high to control safely. Accordingly, we find Carrier proved the Rule 1.1.2 violation by substantial evidence.

      Claim denied.


                          ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Ciaimant(s) not be made.

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of December 1998.