OPINION OF THE BOARD
 This Board, upon the whole record and all 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 May 22, 1984, the Carrier directed the Claimant to attend an investigation on the following charge:
 PLB-2960 Award No. 104

 "Your failure to properly perform your duties when you failed to properly protect track work under your supervisor on May 18, 1984 while you were employed as surfacing gang foreman in the limestone area of the St. Louis subdivision." Subsequently, the Carrier assessed the discipline now on appeal before the Board.
 After reviewing the record, it is the conclusion of the Board that there is substantial evidence to support the charge against the Claimant.
 The Carrier's operating Rule E99(c), clearly requires that under the circumstances present on the day in question, the Claimant, as foreman, was required to place, or have placed, a red flag, reflector or light not less than 800 feet from the place the crew was occupying the track, and a red-yellow flag two miles from that point.
 There was credible testimony that there were no flags placed as required by the rule. Moreover, the testimony of the Claimant failed to establish that he, in fact, had complied with the rule.
 Regarding the appropriateness of the discipline,~the seriousness of the offense cannot be ignored. The basic safety of one's crew is of utmost importance. The rule in question here is designed to provide protection for the crew, and failure t0 comply places employes at great risk. Thus, the Carrier's exercise of its disciplinary discretion, in view of the willful violation of the rule, is not unreasonable.
 PLB-2960 Award No. 104
 AWARD:



        arper, mp omber ar ~~ n, /arrier Memoer


Dated:

        V


- 3 -