PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of :Jay Employes
 DILUTE: and.

STATEMENT The claim of Rosendo Rios requesting ten (10)
 h days pay for the ten (10) days suspension he
 served and the removal of his thirty (30)
 days deferred suspension.

 FINDINGS: By reason of the Agreement entered into by and
 between the parties on June 13, 1984, and upon
 all of the evidence in the record, the Board finds that the
 parties hereto are respectively the employe and the carrier
 as defined in the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that
 it has jurisdiction in this proceeding.

 On January 3, 1984, Claimant was notified that an investigation would be held to determine the responsibility of an accident which occurred at approximately 99:30 A.M. on
 December 22, 1983, when a truck driven by the Claimant fouled -
 the main track causing Carrier's engines to strike and damage
 the ruck. The investigation was held on January 12, 1984.
 1'he Claimant and his representative w=re present. Cn
 February 2, 1984, the Claimant was advised that, he was assesslkd
 forty (40) working days suspenjtor, ten (10) working days to be
 served and shirt (30) working days to be held in abeyance for a
 period of one (1T year. He actually served the tea (10) day
 suspension from January 13 through February 24, 1984.

 The record shows on December 22, 1983, Claimant was cleaning switches in Cal Park Yard. He drive a truck rented by the Carrier, in pursuing his work. When he tried to make a U-turn his truck stalled in the snow on the Main Line Track. Claimant admitted that the truck fouled the Main Line fc.r five minutes before it was struck by the train.

                                        Docket `To. 1

                                        _2_


Claimant testified that during the five minutes before the train struck the truck, he tried to :hove the truck out of the snow rut by shifting gears forward and backwards. He had a passenger, a Machine Operator, who remained in the truck until seconds before it was struck. Claimant admitted that he did not ask or direct his passenger to get out of the truck and watch for oncoming trains because he was frightened and did not think of it. This is hardly a reasonable excuse in view of the imp=ending probable danger and damage to the truck, which amounted to approximately $2,785.00. It is fortunate that the Claimant and his passenger were able to ,jump out of the truck before the impact and avoid serious injuries.

          Carrier's Safety Rule 3342 reads as follows:


                Vehicle driver is responsible for the safe and proper operation of the vehi-cle in his charge and the safety of the occupants.


Claimant or his passenger, at his direction, should have flagged trains on the Main Line. By not doing so, he not only violated Safety Rule 3342 but other safety rules which relate to the movement of trains, engines, and other Carrier vehicles. Being stuck on the Main Line for five minutes without protection is dangerously a long time. Claimant was negligent for not providing this protection. The suspension penalty was ,justified and for ,just cause.

                          AWARD


          Claim denied.


          l,V DAVID D6LR7 , Ua &rman "aa ember


    . ~~..,

                            56 co

    n. B E A 1 Carr er · em er W LT Ab; Employe Memoer


DATED: .'.J