PARTIES Consolidated Rail-- Brotherhood of Maintenance
 to Corporation and of Way Employes
 DISPUTE:

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

FINDINGS: In this dispute, the Claimant was required to attend a
 hearing to develop facts and determine responsibility concerning
 his operation of a tie handler at the time it struck and injured a
 fellow employee.
 Subsequent to a hearing, the Claimant was found guilty of violating the Carrier's Safety Rules and he was dismissed from the service.
 Unquestionably, we are impressed with the organization's arguments in the record and before this Board. Similarly, the Carrier has presented its thorough analysis of the events and circumstances which contributed to the dispute before us.
 The organization contends that the carrier has failed on two counts to carry its burden. First, it maintains that the Claimant was not afforded a fair and impartial hearing, and second, that notwithstanding, the Claimant was not totally responsible for his
 PLS No. 3514 C-124 A-119
 Page 2

 machine striking the other employee, because the machine did not have an operative horn to warn people and because he was operating it in accordance with the instructions of his Supervisor.
 After our thorough review of the record, while we do not easily set aside the Organization's contentions, we conclude that the claim must fail. With respect to the hearing, it is clear that the Claimant and the Organization were not impaired in their presentation and the Claimant was provided full opportunity to question the key witnesses and explain what occurred on and before the day of the incident. '
 Concerning the merits, certainly it is not unreasonable to
 conclude that others might have shared in the responsibility for
 the incident. However, the Rule used for the charge herein is clear
 and specific with respect to the Claimant's responsibility. The
 evidence is convincing that the Claimant did not comply with the
 Rule. Moreover, the Claimant testified that he had a whistle that
 was to be used to alert others of the movement of his machine. In
 the incident here, he testified that he did not blow the whistle
 before he struck the other employee. In view of all the facts and
 circumstances prevalent herein, we cannot sustain the claim.
 AWARD


F,: . Domza s i Eckehar Kuessig /J. P. Cassese
 Carrier Member Neutral Member / Employee Member

 Dated: 0 EC ~~`