Was the Carrier's decision to dismiss Welder J. A. Kreipe and to assess-- Welder Helper· lwt'. F. Courseln's personal record with thirty (30) demerits without a fair ar:d impartial investigation-in violation of the current -Agreement,- unjust and an abuse of discretion?
That each Claimant's record will now be clear of all charges -and no reference thereto made in the future with Claimant Kreipe being restored to service with seniority and all other rights. restored unimpaired and compensation for all wage loss suffered and expenses as a result of the violation referred to above-"
On February 14, 1986 Claimants herein "assigned to weld a frog" in s :switch in the, vicinity of Paul ine, Kansas. They got- permission from the operator, proceeded to the location and began work. =.-t approximately noon, the two Claimants werfZ__required to clear the
track to permit a work train to proceed past that location. After lunch, Mr. Kr®ipe contacted the work train by radio an-d was informed by the engineer that the train was proceeding west to do its- work in the vicinity of Osage City. Mr. Krgipe informed the engineer--that he was going to set his truck on the track east of the train in the Pauline yards to work on the switch in question-. The engineer indicated that he understood the message. After the train completed its work in Osage City and was returning eastbound to Topeka when it struck the welding truck used by the two Claimants herein at approximately 2:40 p.m. at the east end of the yard. The accident resulted in almost total destruction of the welding truck which was worth approximately $60,000. No one was injured. Subsequently, the two Claimants received a letter indicating that a formal investigation would be held involving the accident and following the investigation, Mr. Kr Sipe was dismissed .end Mr. Courselfl~was assessed 30 demerits.
There is no question but that the two employees were guilty of dereliction of duty in that they did not adequately protect their, vehicle and themselves in the course of their work day. This was freely admitted at the investigation by both employees. However, both employees indicated that they had worked in the same fashion with apparent knowledge by Carrier officials for many years. In fact, Mr. Coursek indicated that he had operated in exactly the same fashion and had seen other welders operate in this fashion for thirteen to fourteen years prior to the accident. Both men
admitted, however, that the protection provided was not adequate under all the circumstances and, furthermore, that they had many options to exercise with respect to protection, but none of them were used under the rules.
From the °oard's vantage point, there is no doubt but that the two employees were guilty of violation of Carrier's rules. However, ?n view of the fact that the.type of protection which they had indulged in on the particular day had been accepted on a de facto basis by certain Carrier officials over a long period of time, mitigates against the severity of the discipline accorded the two men. For that reason, Mr. Krdipe will be reinstated to his former position with all rights unimpaired, but will receive no pay for time lost. His time out. of service would constitute a disciplinary lay-off. Mr. Cou-rse*n. will have his demerits reduced from 30 fr-ups 20 because of the particular circumstances.