(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Employes

TIES TO DISPUTE:

(The Burlington ortern and Santa Fe Railway Company

( (former Burlington Northern Railroad Company)

`Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(I)- The discipline [Level suspension of thirty (30) days and probation period of three (3) years] imposed upon r. J.

Ca ple for alleged violation of Rule 6.51 and Rule 6.27 while assigned aa track inspector on arch , 1999 when Unit #14631 struck the rear of Herog Chase Vehicle 7 t r near Bellevue, Nebraska as unwarranted, excessive and in violation of the Agreement [System File C- -SO 0-1 /10-0249 (MW) N].

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above,

r. J: . Cale shall no `. . . e ehole for all losses

suffered account of tis discipline bein assessed; I also request

ny mention otis discipline a rovero the principle's

personal record."'

The carrier or, carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the ailway Labor ct, as approved June 21,1934.

This Division of the Adjustent Board has jurisdiction oven the dispute involved herein.,

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The Claimant established and holds seniority as A Rank l Track Inspector in the Track Sbdeartent: (fin Friday, arch 5,1999; the Claimant was regularly assigned s such to the Track Inspector position patrollin track under the supervision of oadmaster J. Johnston.

(fin arch 5,1999, the Claimant as operating a hy-rail vehicle (Unit #14631) in the vicinity of Bellevue, Nebraska, when a faile to stop short of Herzog Chase Vehicle No. 7 which had stopped at or near Mile Post 6.. The Claimant's vehicle struck the rear of Herzog Chase Vehicle o. 7 causinit to move forward and strike the operator of Herzog Chase Vehicle loo: 7, who was standing in front of the vehicle. The result of the incident, which did not cause inju to the Operator,. caused approximately $400.00 worth of dame to the Herzo Chase Vehicle n

letter dated arch 1, 1999, the Claimant was directed to " rrn a t.

The Organization claims that the discipline imposed upon the Claimant was unwarranted, harsh, and excessive. The Organization contends that the burden of proof in a discipline matter such as this is on the Carrier; that burden of proof has not been met. While, the Organization. concedes that the Claimant was involved in the accident inquestion; it claims that the accident occurred through o fault of the Claimant. Prior to the accident, a liquid compound of anti-freeze an water had been placed on the track making it very difficult for the hy-rail to stop, thus causin

the accident. In addition; the Carrier did not provide a colete transcript of the Investigation in a timely manner: Accordin to the Organization, t Carrier should now be require to clear the Claimant's record f any mention f the: incident' to copensate him for all of his lost wages, includin lost overtime and to make him whole for vacation, holidays, and senioi

Cnversely,the Carrier takes the ponion that it t its burden of r.

o physical injury caused. According to the Carrier, a revie of the transcript developed durin the Investigation leaves not that the Claimant violate the relevant 1.

I discipline cases, the ord sits s a appellate forum. e o not ei the

affirmative, we are not warranted in disturbing the penalty unless we can salt appears from the record that the Carrier's actions were unjust, unreasonable or arbitrary, so as to constitute an abuse of the Carrier's discretion. (See Second Division Award 732 ; Third Division .ward 16166.)

In the instant case, the Claimant is charged with a violation of Mules 6.51 and 6.27, which provide that operators are to maintain a safe braking distance and be able to stop within half the range of vision of an approaching train.

After a review of the evidence, the Board finds that there was substantial evidence in the record to sustain the Carrier's position that the Claimant did not act appropriately when he did not maintain a safe breaking distance, thereby striking Herzog Chase vehicle o. 7: pile it does appear to be true that there was liqui

applied to the tracks; it is the Operator's obligation to inspect the track in order to take appropriate precautions. In the instant case, the Carrier has proven that the Claimant engaged in the violations alleged.

In sum; we find that the discipline imposed was reasonable and we will not disturb it.

Clai denied.

ORDER