remain off until he could report with the proper boots. The Claimant lost work time until late March 1998 as a result. The several year history preceding the Carrier's action is quite remarkable.

It is undisputed that the Carrier has had a safety boot policy and purchase program for many years. The Claimant bought boots through the program in 1992 but soon experienced irritation due to a condition affecting the fourth toe on his left foot. The condition was verified in the record by proper medical evidence. As a result, the Carrier agreed to pay for the full cost of custom-made steel-toed boots for the Claimant.

Although the on-property correspondence has conflicts about the content of discussions between the Claimant and a representative of the Carrier's medical department in the 1992-93 time frame, certain facts are established by well-settled principles of railroad arbitration. The Claimant found a manufacturer who could custom-make boots for the Claimant to applicable safety standards. However, the manufacturer required a $150.00 deposit to start work. The final conversation between the Claimant and the medical department representative occurred on May 19, 1993.

According to the Carrier's assertions, the Claimant was instructed by the medical department representative to place the deposit himself and he would be reimbursed. The Claimant refuted this assertion via a proper written evidentiary statement. Although the record contains two letters from the medical department representative, neither constitutes the requisite proof of the Carrier's refuted assertion. Moreover, it is clear that at no time did the Carrier charge the Claimant with failure to comply with instructions from proper authority.

What is established in the record is that the Claimant informed his Supervisor, in writing, on August 2,1993 of the need for the $150.00 deposit. He also wrote, "How do we get them the $150?"

Thereafter, the Claimant began wearing regularwork boots (non-steel-toed) to work. He continued to do so with the full knowledge of the then and subsequent Supervisors without objection for the next four and one-half years until, as previously noted, he was ordered off the property on February 9, 1998.

There is no evidence that the Claimant was given any warning of the Carrier's impending action. Interestingly, the record establishes that the Carrier directly paid the $150.00 deposit the following day, February 10,1998, and the boots were produced in due

course. In addition, there is no evidence that the Claimant delayed the manufacture of the boots in any manner whatsoever or that he did not timely report for work after receiving the boots.

It is axiomatic that Carriers have the right to implement reasonable work Rules. But it is also well-settled that this is a two-faceted process. Not only must the content of work Rules be reasonable, they must also be reasonable in the application.

The Board does not quarrel with the Carrier's requirement of steel-toed safety boots in general. But this record clearly establishes that the Claimant's Supervisors, by their consistent response over several years, granted the Claimant an indefinite exception to the requirement. Having done so, the Carrier's action was unreasonable when that exception was revoked without warning on February 9, 1998.

Because the record fails to demonstrate a proper administrative ordisciplinary basis for having removed the Claimant from active payroll status, we are compelled to sustain the claim.

This dispute is remanded to the parties to determine the appropriate calculations to make the Claimant whole for all losses resulting from the Carrier's improper action.

AWARD