A careful review of the record indicates that a co-worker used his machine to tow the Claimant's machine, which had a mechanical problem. During the process of pushing the Claimant's machine from the work site to a side track, the Claimant's machine- came into contact with a third machine. Although the co-worker took responsibility for the error and received discipline from the Carrier, the Carrier decided to issue the disputed letter of reprimand to the Claimant.

The Carrier has the burden of proof to impose discipline. In the present case, the record indicates that the Claimant had an affirmative obligation to warn the co-worker of the approaching danger in a timely manner and to apply the brakes in a way that avoided contact with the third machine under these precise circumstances. For whatever reason, the Claimant failed to do so. By issuing a letter of reprimand, the Carrier acted to underscore to the Claimant the importance of remaining vigilant and of anticipating potential hazards in the workplace. The Carrier had a right to expect that the Claimant would not merely rely on his co-workers to insure a safe work environment. The Carrier had a right to require the Claimant to assume such responsibility as well. The issuance of such minor discipline in the form of a letter of reprimand in conjunction with the Rule violations involved in the present case therefore did not constitute an arbitrary or capricious action by the Carrier and did not constitute an abuse of discretion by the Carrier.

AWARD