At approximately 10:30 A.M. on April 18, 1995, Claimant was operating Anchor Boxer BNX 0100276 when the safety lock for the workhead turned. Claimant did not follow proper lockout/tagout procedures before attempting to adjust the misaligned piece. The workhead unexpectedly completed the work cycle and pinched Claimant's finger. Claimant reported and was treated for his injury.
A three man inspection team investigated the accident and examined the machine used by the Claimant. The three man inspection team determined that the injury was caused by Claimant's failure to adhere to lockout/tagout procedures.
By letter dated April 19, 1995, Claimant was notified to "arrange to attend investigation . . . for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and determining your responsibility, if any, in connection with your alleged failing to follow lockout/tagout procedures while operating machine Number BNX0100276 . . ." which resulted in a personal injury.
Following the Investigation which was held on April 28, 1995, a Notice of Discipline was issued on May 26, 1995, notifying the Claimant that he had been found guilty and assessed discipline of a 25-day suspension for violation of Rule 30.5.2 of the Burlington Northern Maintenance of Way Operating Rules.
The Organization appealed Claimant's suspension to the Carrier's highest designated officer, and the appeal was denied. The parties being unable to resolve the issue, this matter comes before the Board.
The Organization raised a procedural issue that the Claimant did not receive a proper copy of the transcript of the Investigation in this case.
The Board has reviewed the procedural claim raised by the Organization and we find it to be without merit.
With respect to the substantive issue, the Organization contends that Claimant did not deliberately violate the Safety Rule because Claimant was not aware of the proper procedure, Carrier had not properly trained Claimant, and the machine was mechanically faulty.
The Board reviewed the record and the testimony in this case. Claimant admitted that he had not complied with the Safety Rule. Form 1 Page 3
Carrier's Safety Rules expressly prohibit an employee from working on machines without first properly locking out the machine. We do not find the Organization's contention that Claimant did not know the proper lockout procedure due to Carrier's failure to properly train Claimant persuasive. Evidence indicates that training was provided. Nor do we rind persuasive the argument that the accident was due to a mechanically faulty machine. While evidence was introduced that the machine had recently been repaired for mechanical problems, evidence also indicated that mechanics found no mechanical problems when the machine was inspected after the injury. Evidence clearly indicated that the injury would not have occurred had the proper lockout/tagout procedure been followed.
The Board finds that the record shows substantial probative evidence in support of the Carrier's determination that the Claimant violated Rule 30.5.2. The discipline of 25 days was not excessive.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.