..





PARTIES TO DISPUTE: --
 Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 And
 Southern Railway Company

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

      W.S. Reid, Foreman, 1911 Willymax_Avenue, Gastona, N.C. 28052, was suspended from service for 30 days for allegedly violating Operating Rule 1521 in connection with Smoothing Machine being struck by an automobile. Employees request pay for all-time lost with vacation and seniority rights unimpaired.


FINDINGS: -
 Claimant, at the time o£ the incident in question, was
 employed by Carrier as a track foreman at Gaffney, South
 Carolina.
 By letter dated December 17, 1981, Claimant was notified
 to attend an investigation concerning charges that he violated
 Operating Rule 1521 on December 16, 1981. An investigation
 was held on December 22, 1981. By letter-dated December 28,
 1981, Claimant was notified that he was suspended from service
 for the period from December 17, 1981 to January 17, 1982, for
 his culpability concerning the above-cited violation.
 . 3cI q5. ~-

 The issue to be decided in this dispute is whether Claimant was disciplined for just cause under the Agreement.

      The position of the Carrier is that Claimant violated -

Rule 1521 on the date in question by entering a grade crossing
 without due caution and striking an automobile going through
 the crossing. Rule 1521 states, "On-track equipment ap-,
 proaching a highway grade crossing, must be prepared to stop
 short and must not enter the crossing until the way is known
 to be clear".
 The Carrier contends that testimony produced at the hearing established that Claimant failed-to ensure that his machine could properly stop short of the crossing and that he entered the crossing without making sure that it was-clear resulting in the accident. Specifically, the Carrier cites Claimant's own testimony which indicated that he took no action to ensure that the machine entered the crossing area with due caution. The Carrier further cites Claimant's testimony where he admitted to being in charge of and responsible for the safe operation of the machine.
 Finally, the Carrier argues that the discipline imposed was reasonable. The Carrier contends that Rule 1521 must be complied with in order to ensure overall safety, and that claimant's violation of the Rule created a potentially catastrophic situation.

      The position of the organization is that Claimant was =

not primarily responsible for the accident in question and
 therefore should not have been disciplined by Carrier.

                          - 2 -

                                            PLB No. 3445 AWARD NO. 2

                                            CASE P10. 2


The Organization admits that Claimant was the employee in charge .on the date in question. However, it is the organization's position that machine Operator A.M. Earnest was primarily responsible for the accident since he was operating the machine at the time of the accident. The Organization cites Earnest's testimony, where he indicated that -_ he was responsible for the safe operation of the machine. The Organization contends that Earnest was primarily negligent, and that the discipline imposed against Claimant was unwarranted
 The Organization, in further support of its position, pointsto the fact that the automobile driver involved in the accident was charged with failure to yield right of way. The Organization maintains that in light of the circumstances surrounding the accident, Claimant's discipline was without just cause.
 After a review of the entire record, the Board finds that - a ten dap suspension, under the circumstances, was appropriate.
 It is not the purpose of this Board to rehear an investigation that the Carrier held but only to determine 'if the discipline imposed was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
 The Carrier has established through substantial, credible evidence that Claimant violated Rule 1521. Claimant admitted his failure to ensure that the machine was "prepared to stop short" or that the crossing was "known to be clear". The accident itself indicates that Claimant could not have checked to make sure the crossing was clear. Claimant further admitted

                        - 3 -

                                              ~ Lit/ ~ -a-


that he was responsible for the safety of the machine's operation. We,, therefore, find that Claimant was guilty of violating Rule 1521 on the date in question.
 Notwithstanding the above, the Board finds that the discipline imposed was excessive under the circumstances. As noted by the Organization, Machine Operator Earnest

 was negligent in his duties and was a major factor in causing -
 the accident. Although we agree that Claimant was ultimately
 responsible far the safety of the machine, -we find that Earnest's
 negligence was at least partly responsible for the accident.
 Further, although not conclusive, the fact that the automobile
 driver was negligent in not giving Claimant's machine the
 right of way further mitigates Claimant's responsibility for
 the accident. While we do not exonerate Claimant, we find

 that a thirty day suspension was excessive,-and, accordingly, -
 must be reduced to ten days. We feel that such a suspension
 is reasonably commensurate with the offense committed.

 AWARD
      Claim disposed of per Findings herein.


                                      k buu~

                          etural Member


                          Carrier Member


                          Orga izaMemb~


Date: // /3 .~ . .__ ._ . ,_ . _ .-