PARTIES) THE ATCi11SON, TOPEKA & SA14 TA FE RAILWAY COMPANY TO ) DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYCS

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: That the Carrier's decision to assess Claimants
 Middle c aroma) Division B&B Foreman W. M. Webatur, B&B Helper/
 Truck Driver G. A. Schultz, and B&B Helper B. D. Lrashenrs with :;C
 demerits each after investigation November 8, 1794 was unjust; TlIat
 the Carrier now expunge 30 demerits from each Claimant's record,
 reimbursing them for all wage loss and expenses incurred as a result
 of attending the investigation November 8, 1984 because a review of
 the investigation transcript reveals that substantial evidence was
 not introduced that indicates Claimants ai:e guilty of violatiuu of
 rules they were charged with in the Notice of lavestigution.

 FIifJINGS: This Public Law Board No. 1582 finds tI·at LILL partiL,.:; herein are Carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisuiction.

 The claimants were notified to attend an investigation in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, November 8, 1984 to determine their responsibility, if any, in connection with possible violation of Rule 16, General Rules for Guidance of Employes, Form 262' Standard, Rucs 12 and 3au, Safety Rules for Santa Fe Employes, Form 2629 Standard, concerning their alleged failure to place boom on 1'ruclc AT 38251. ii, proper position, resulting in damage to boom and injury to two employees on October 15, 1984. Pursuant to the investigation, the claimants were found guilty and each was assessed 30 demerits.

 The Union contends that the decision was unjust and should be sCc. aside. The Union contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the claimants were guilty of a violation of the rules charged in the Notice of Investigation. The transcript of record has been studied and all the testimony reviewed. The evidence indicates that the claie:~nts knew, or should have known, that the boom was not in its cradle. B&3 Foreman W. M. Webster had more responsibility than the uther claimants. Ile was also charged with viulation.uf Rule 1172.

 After ct-ireful consideration, it is the opinion of. the l:o.:rd that: 30 demerit:. is justified in his case. However, tae responsibility is not as ~,~reat for the other two claimants, and for that reason the discipline assessed them will be reduced to 20 demerits. The Carrier is directed to reduce the demerits of- claimants G. A. Schultts and B. D. Brashears to 20 demerits.

 AWARD: Cla;.m disposed of as per above.

 ORDER: The Carrier is directed to comply with this award within
                                            PLB No. 1592

                                            Award No. 295

                                            Page 2


thirty days from the date of this award.

                          reston ,~ oore, LF121rmaT1


                          n on Member


                          Carrier Member


Dated at Chicago, Illinois .January 14, 1985