PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

 ' and

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





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.
 This is a companion caseto Case No. 134. The Claimant in Docket 134 was the Driver of a tamper, which was involved in an accident causing injury to an employe who was riding on the equipment. The Claimant here is that employe. He too was di-

.rected to attend an investigation, received the same investigation notice as the Claimant and both were investigated at the same time.
 This case, however, involves different rules. These are Rules 1026 and 1056 which read respectively as follows:

      "All occupants should be assigned to ride in a certain place on work equipment, instructed to use safety rails, if provided, and will not be permitted to ride in insecure positions. Unnecessary conversation by the operator or occupants while equipment is in motion is prohibited. It is the duty of all occupants to aid the operator in safe handling of the equipment."


      "In case of doubt, adopt the safe course. It is better to be delayed than to have an accident."

    A review of the transcript convinces the Board that the,

Claimant could have done a little more to secure his position on
 the tamper -- he was holding onto the handrail with only one
 hand. The fact he did not do as much as he could is enough to
 justify a ten-day. deferred suspension.
      In view of the foregoing, the Claim is denied.


AWARD:
    The Claim is denied.-


                    ernon, airman


                                      .


~er~mp a em er . . r imon arr er em er

 Dated: