ainnino March 1'y. 1986 through and includino June -

9. .1986 was without must and sufficient cause.

based on unproven charges and in violation of the

Agreement.

C. That the Carrier now be required to compensate Claimant Nunn for all wage loss sufferedand clear his record of all charoes."

Unon the whole record, after hear.ina, the Board finds that the oartiers herein are Carrier- and Employees within the mennina of the Railway Labor Act. as amended, and that this Board i=_ dul:· constituted under Public Law 89-456 and has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.

On Januarv 5, 1986_ Claimant was working his assignment as a Truck Driver. In the course of turninn his vehicle. it became stucV in the mud and it was necessary for another- vehicle to null _t out of the mud. Nothina further occurred until February 13. 1986 at which time an Assistant Roadmaster notice=d that the ar-ill on the particular vehicle involved in the -carlien incident. was cracbed. Upon ouestiunino by the Road Master. Claimant

indicated that the grill must have been cracked on Januarv 5 when it was stuck in the mud. However. he had not prepared the renmxred accident report form (Form 26.11.1. He was subseouenrtiv charged with violating Carrier's rules by not reoortina the accident and after an investigative hearing was found to be ouil tv of that charge. He was assessed a ninety day suspension for the infraction.

Petitioner insists that there is no evidence to prove when the damage to the vehicle occurred_ where it occurred or who was driving it at the time when it occurred. Furthermore the Organization argues that other employees drive the truck in addition to Claimant. Carrier. on the other hand. indicates that there is no doubt but that: Claimant indicated that there had beer a oroblem on January 5 and he assumed that the damage to the vehicle had occurred on that date when interroaated by the Assistant Roadmaster. In this instance. he failed to fill out an accident report until some forty--four- -days follow.ino the incident. He was well aware of the necessity for fillino out such reports having done so an orevious occasions.

The Board upon review of the record believes that sufficient evidence was adduce=d at. the hearing to indicate that Claimant: indwed failed to timel: file the accident report. Although there

no clarity as to how the accident and damage occurred, the

fact- is that Claimant was the driver durino the incident on Januarv 5 and believed that that nrobablvwas the cause of the damaoe to the vehicle. However. as the Board views .it. a ninety day susoens,ion was- ancessive for the narticular tvpe of infraction reaerdlesa of Claimant's past record. Therefore. the penalty shall be reduced to a thirty day suspension and Claimant shall be made whole for the difference. -

Claim sustained in oart. The oenaltv shall be reduced to a thirty (301 day suspension and Claimant shall be made whole for all losses eus-t.ained in excess of that amount..

Carrier will comolv with the award herein within thirty (30) days from the date hereof. -

T . t9. Lieberman. Neutral-Chairman