1.24 "Railroad property must be kept in a clean, orderly, and safe condition. Railroad buildings, facilities, or equipment must not be damaged or defaced. Only information authorized by the proper manager or required by law may be posted on railroad property."

· Be responsible for their personal safety and accountable for their behavior as a condition of employment,

· Take every precaution to prevent injury to themselves, other employees, and the public,

· Comply with all rules, policies, and outstanding instructions,

· Report, correct, or protect any unsafe condition or practice, . . .

· Use good judgment in fulfilling job responsibilities safely."

The facts surrounding the above incident are relatively straightforward. On May 18, 2007, after being assigned to cut and spray weeds around the Carrier's signal equipment, the Claimant took a weed trimmer and cut the weeds around a propane tank used to supply gas to the No. 3 switch. He then proceeded to the outer edge of the mown section and began walking backwards towards the tank to spray the weeds. At some point he stepped backwards onto either an old railroad tie or piece of utility pole. The wood was rotten and gave way under the Claimant causing him to slip off of it, jam his foot into the ground and twist his knee.

Russell Pratt, Manager of Signal Maintenance, testified that as part of the Claimant's duties, he was responsible for ensuring that the work site and the area that he was working in were clean and free. In short, it would be customary for the Claimant to clean up his particular work area including any railroad ties and other debris that were lying around the grounds. When Pratt arrived at the scene after the injury occurred, he noticed that next to the propane tank there were some pieces of an old tie and part of an old pole lying on the ground next to the tank. Pratt testified that by choosing to walk backward while spraying, the Claimant did not have his eyes on the path - i.e., he was basically walking blind with no protection. Pratt noted that had the Claimant sprayed and walked forward he would have seen the debris in his path and taken a safe course around it; thus, in his view, the injury was preventable. Pratt noted that after the weed cutting, the ties and poles were completely visible. Pratt also testified that it was common practice for an individual

70.11 "Good housekeeping must be maintained at all times. Dispose of garbage, water bottles, used batteries, or other refuse material . . . in a proper manner and in appropriate disposal receptacles. Do not discard aerosol cans in containers that may be incinerated. Company refuse facilities are not to be used for personal use. Do not place or allow tools, equipment or other materials to remain on floors, stairways, or walkways where they could cause a slip, trip, or fall."

80.1 "Observe safety practices that eliminate slips, trips and falls . . . . Avoid objects, obstructions, holes, and openings and be alert to underfoot conditions. . . : '

· Keep your hands out of pockets for balance.

· Take short, deliberate steps with toes pointed outward.

· When stepping over objects, such as rails, be sure your front foot is flat before moving your rear foot."

working alone to request assistance from maintenance to help clear up debris in the work area.

In his defense, the Claimant testified that he was not "willy nilly" stumbling around backwards. Rather, he had opted to walk backwards, stop, and spray in order to avoid walking into the weed killer. Pratt, however, testified that although the Claimant had been issued a pair of rubber boots to protect his feet as he walked forward spraying the weeds, on the day in question, the Claimant was not using the boots. He further stated, without challenge, that the Claimant had taken a Rules examination in 2007, and the Claimant conceded that he was acquainted with the Safety and housekeeping Rules at issue. The Claimant also testified that although he had requested clean-up assistance in other areas and he was aware of all of the debris in the area, which had been there a while, he had taken no steps to arrange for clean up at this location.

Charles Alexander, Assistant Superintendent of A & S Railway, also investigated the incident. When he got to the site, he observed that there was a lot of debris in the area including pieces of utility poles and concrete, an old tire and junk in the walkway! In his view, no housekeeping had been done in this area and the Claimant violated all of the Rules with which he was charged by not taking the safe course and not being careful to prevent an injury in choosing to walk backward while performing his duties. As Alexander noted,

"If he'd been walking forward, complying with the rules and keeping his eyes on the walkway [the accident likely would not have occurred.] He's the one that weed-eated the areas and exposed all the debris that was in the area and he didn't trip over it when he was weed-eating."

Alexander further stated that it was the Claimant's sole responsibility for cleaning the area in question because he was the Signal Maintainer for that area.

Z In contrast to Pratt, Alexander testified that he did not observe any ties; rather there were a number of pieces of old utility poles. Alexander testified that the charge letter states that the Claimant tripped over a tie because the accident report reflected the Claimant's contention that he tripped over a tie. Resolution of whether the Claimant tripped over a tie or a utility pole, however, is not relevant to determining whether the Claimant violated the Rules in question.

The Organization asserts that no Rule prohibits an employee from stepping backwards if necessary. Additionally, it argues that the Carrier knew that these conditions existed prior to the incident, yet took no action to remedy the problem.

Those arguments are misplaced. The Carrier's well-established Safety Rules emphasize personal responsibility for one's safety while on the ,fob. With reference to housekeeping responsibilities they are crystal clear. While walking backwards is not in and of itself a safety hazard, in the context of this case walking backwards in a field known to be strewn with debris constitutes negligent behavior. In addition, whether other employees should have taken action in the past to clean the area is irrelevant. The Claimant was the sole Signal Maintainer assigned to the area at issue on the day in question and under the Rules he was obligated to either request assistance to clean the area or exercise greater care to avoid contact with debris. Under the circumstances presented, the Board concludes that the discipline imposed was for good cause.

AWARD