The record -indicate; that Claimant herein had been employeo b·. Carrier since March of 1979.--On FebrUarv 26, 1985, al appro·;in~,al_:=ly 7:15 pat. Claimant was ariving s Companv vehicle -cn a causew.-ty near llidlal,e. Utah and apparently hit a rock causinc tire vehicle to ao off the road and hit an empty boxcar. Upon his
supervisor arriving at the scene, subsequently, it appeared l.:= the supervisor, in addition to the accident to the veniclu. that Claimant had been drinking. He was subsequently charged wit;-, violatina two Company rules. Rules G and M-801 dealino with safety. Following a hearing which was held on March 5, loss, Claimant was found auiltv of the charges and dismissed from Carrier's service. In the course of the hearing. Claimant admitted that he had two or three beers prior to comina on arty on the date in question. Subsequent to the investigation on (larch 1'2, 1985, Claimant secured other employment. On may 1, an the course of tlrzs other employment, he fell off a roof incurring serious-injury. As a result of this injury he was comatose fo, two t-rer_4;s arid remained in the hospital for approximately f<_ur months. He hard broken has neck_ his arm, arid head severe he"d injuries. The record also .indicates that all parties to tni= matter agreed that the particular road on which the acclownt ocurred i=_ 8 dangerous one. It also should be noted that. Claimant was instructed to take a physical examination ors behalf of the Lompany or-, February 19, 198·', after he was released to oo back -to duty by his own physician. As a result of the- Company __ examination it. was found that he was physically, at that Lime. unfit for service as a laborer on the Carrier.
consumed at least two or three bottles of beer orior to that timron February 2'b. The Petitioner notes that Claimant insists that he was sober at the time of his accident, even though tle admitted to having consumed some alcohol previously. Claimant argues that the condition of the road was the main cause of the accident_ and there was no evidence to refute this claim, according to that Petitioner. The Petitioner also rotes that this young m,,;n had- a good work record prior to this incident and should not havt· been dismissed by Carrier.
~=In examination of the record of this matter reveals without questioi) that Claimant was in violation of Rule G at the time -01 the_ accident in this particular situation. That type of offensc aener-aliv is recognized as a dismissal infraction, and for Good ret,soI-I. In addition, it i:> also obvious that ,there :vas no explsjnation for the accident by Claimant which was satisfactorv on the record. Leased on the entire record of this situation, it .is the Hoard's view that dismissal was too harsh a penalty under