OPINION OF THE BOARD
 This Board, upon the whole record and ail of the evidence, finds and holds~that the Employe and Carrier involved in this dispute are respectively Employe and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
 On February 28, 1984, the Carrier directed the Claimant to attend an investigation on the following charge:

                                              -goo

                                              ~~o w2


The investigation was postponed once. Subsequent to the investigation, the Carrier assessed the discipline on appeal before the Board.
 The basic facts are not in dispute. On February 23, 1984, while the Claimant was operating a Burro Crane from Williamson to Clariton, Iowa, the magnet -- hooked to the boom of the crane -fell between the rail. As the Claimant's machine moved over the magnet, the transmission case and brake rigging suffered exten-
 sive damage. -
 The work rule which applies to this case is Rule 1011, which reads:
 "Employee in charge of work equipment will be personally responsible for the safe operation of the equipment." The Carrier argues that based on the rule, there is substantial evidence of the Claimant's guilt. They contend that it is irrelevant that the hook, which held the magnet, did not have a safety latch. They note that the Claimant testified that although he was aware that there was no safety latch on the hook, he had not reported this fact to anyone, nor had he taken any measures to secure the hook.
 The Organization makes two arguments. First, they contend that the manner in which the Claimant operated the Burro Crane on February 24, 1984, was acquiesced in by the Roadmaster. Second, they assert that since the Roadmaster was well aware of the type of hook being used, and allowed the crane to be so operated, the Carrier's decision to discipline the Claimant for alleged damage to ~a machine represents an abuse of discretion.

                      _2_

                                              PLB N0. 2960


                                              AWARD N0. 102 - CASE N0. 137


Based on the evidence contained in the transcript, the Board cannot hold the Claimant responsible for the accident.
 At the base of this finding, is the fact that there is general agreement in the record that had the crane been equipped with the type of hook that had a safety latch, the accident would not have occurred. The Carrier believes this is not material since the Claimant had not taken measures to secure the hook, or bring the matter to,anyone's attention.
 However, in the context of this record, these arguments are not cogent. First, the Board is satisfied that the Carrier was fully aware that the crane was being operated without .a safetylatch hook and failed to take exception to its operation in this mode.
 Thit fact is established by the sheer length of time that the crane was operated without a safety-latch hook. It is also established by the fact that two months prior to the incident, the Claimant was instructed to give a smaller and better hook, which was on his machine, to another crane operator. It is also relevant that at this time, the other crane operator asked the Carrier to purchase a new hook, and the request was denied. It is also important, to note, that although the Carrier was aware that unsecured hooks were in operation, they issued no specific instruction that operators should take certain precautions. The Carrier did argue that he should have known to wrap wire around the hook. However, there is no basis in the record to show that this would have prevented the accident, or even that he should
                                                ~L,Q ~-cl'(oo


have known to do this. The investigation is void of any evidence on "wrapping wire" around the hook. Thus, this is complete speculation on the Carrier's part.
 Accordingly, it is apparent that the Claimant, insofar as the hook goes, was operating the crane in a manner consistent
 with that which the Carrier had accepted as customary and usual..
 Thus, it is unreasonable to expect the Claimant to have brought
 the matter to anyone's attention, or to have taken other precau
 tions such as wiring the hook. Therefore, no responsibility,
 direct or indirect, can accrue to the Claimant in connection with
 the hook. .
 The only possible responsibility which might accrue to the Claimant, under the relevant rule and these circumstances, is if he was operating the crane at an unreasonably high speed as to cause bouncing of the magnet. However, there is no evidence to rebut the Claimant's contention that he was consciously watching his speed so as to prevent that.
 In summary, the Carrier has not shown that the Claimant was acting unreasonably., wrecklessly, or in a manner which contributed to, or caused, the accident.

 -4-
 PLB N0. 2960 AWARD N0. 102 CASE N0. 137 AWARD:

    The Carrier is ordered to compensate the Claimant for all time lost.


~'~1 Vernon, unairman

 ~.I~rL G ~
 arper, mp oye Mem er arrv . 1mon, arrier em er

 Dated: Lv la
- S-