BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY
 EMPLOYES DIVISION - HIT RAIL CONFERENCE

 vs

 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY



STATEMENT CAF CLAIM:








FINDINGS:

 Public Law Board lira. 7048, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds that Employee and Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute herein; and that the parties to the dispute have participated in accordance to the Agreement that established the Board.

 On September 17,2010, Claimant was directed to attend a formal Investigation can September- 28, 2010, which was mutually postponed until November 4, 010, concerning in pertinent part the following charge:
P.L.B. No. 7048
 Award No. 76, Case No. 76
 Page 2

On November 4, 2010, Claimant was notified that he had been found guilty charged and was assessed Level 3(l Day Record Suspension with a rune year probationary period.

 It is the Organization"s position that the Carrier did not meet its burden of proof and even if it had, which it did not, the discipline exercised was excessive rather than rehabilitative. It closed by requesting that the discipline rescinded and the claim be sustained as preseented.

 It is the position of the Carrier the Claimant was guilty of failing to inspect the area behind his vehicle before he backed it into a pale and the subsequent discipline it exercised was in accordance with the Carrier's Policy for Employee Performance Accountability (PEPA). It concluded by asking that the discipline not be disturbed.

 The Board has thoroughly reviewed the transcript and record of evidence and has determined that the Investigation was held in accordance with Rule 13(a) the Discipline Rule and Appendix No. 11.

 The Carrier alleged that can September 14., Rules which state:

 the Claimant violated the following

 " 1.1.2 Alert and Attentive Employees must be careful to prevent injuring themselves or others. They trust be alert and attentive when performing their duties and plan their work to avoid injury.

 -12.8 Backing 12.8.1 Vehi les Position the vehicle, when possible, to avoid backup movement. Before hacking, inspect areas to the rear to verify that no personnel or obstructions are in the path of movement. When backing vehicles, including vans, but other than automobiles and pickup trucks: * Position someone near the back of the vehicle to guide movement, when available: * Sound the horn three short blasts in vehicles trot equipped with backup alarms. * Stop it the person guiding the movement disappears from view."



On page 17 of the transcript, the Claimant was questioned about the incident that transpired at the Houston, Texas, Old South Rail Yard can September 14th. Claimant testified as follows:

      "Tommy Brazier. Can you tell us about, can you tell us what you know about the incident on September the 14th?


      Steve McAdams: I was called out about 2:30 in the morning for service interruption on the north end of track 841 and it was a dead battery on the switch, I ended up changing the battery on the switch and then I was going back to the office to start any next day's duty, I barked into the pole.


      Tommy Brazier: And were you working alone on that date.`


      Steve McAdams: Yes sir.


      Tommy Brazier: AU right, prior to backing into the pale did you make an inspection around the back of the vehicle to see if there were any obstructions in your path`?`


      Steve McAdams: No sir." (Underlining Board's emphasis)


Despite the Organization's vigorous arguments in behalf ofthe Claimant such the allegations that the lighting in the area was poor and if the truck had backing proximity sensors car if the pole he backed into had reflective tape on it the accident might have been avoided does not eliminate the fact that the Claimant backed into a pole and caused significant damage to a Carrier vehicle muse he did not follow the directives set forth in the Rules he was charged with having violated. Substantial evidence was adduced at the Investigation that the Carrier met its burden of proof that Claimant was guilty as charged.

 The only issue remaining is whether the discipline was appropriate. At the time of the incident the Claimant had approximately 20 years of service with a good work record, however, C'laimant's violation was of a serious nature. Review of the discipline exercised indicates that it was in accordance with PEPA, therefore, the Board finds and holds the discipline will not beset aside because it was not excessive, arbitrary gar capricious. The claim wilt remain denied.
 P.L..S. No. 7018
 Award No. 76, Case No. 76
 Page 4

 AWARD
Claire denied.

 William K. Miller, Chairman & Neutral Member

 Samantha Rogers, Carrier tuber

 Award Date:

                  77-


David D. Tanner. Employee Member