w
 AWARD NO. 54
 Case No. 54

PARTIES) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
 TO )
 DISPUTE) BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 (1) The 180-day suspension assessed Sectionman G. R. Boren for
 alleged violation of various company rules, as indicated by Mr.
 G. F. Altenburg's letter of October 1-1, 1991, is aribtrary, capri
 cious and totally unwarranted.

 (2) In light of (1) above, the claimant's record shall-be cleared of the discipline referred to above and he shall be compensated for all time lost.

 FINDINGS: This Public Law Board No. 4338 finds that the parties -
 herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of-the Railway
 Labor Act, as amended, and that this Board has jurisdiction.

 In-this dispute the claimant was notified to attend an investigation on September 16, 1991 in Nampa, Idaho to develop the facts and
 determine his responsibility, if any, in connection with an accident -
 which occurred on August 23, 1991 at approximately 1:40 p.m. at the
 Idaho Northern Branch, near Mile Post _60.95, when he allegedly fell - __
 asleep while-patroling in Vehicle No. 1915-6250-1 behind Union Pacific
 North, colliding with caboose and causing possible injury to himself
 and other employees in hy-rail and causing damage to Company property
 which indicated a violation of General Notice (a) and (b) and General
 Rules A, B and I and Rules 602, 607(2) and 404_5 of Form 7908,- Safety
 Radio-and General Rules for All Employees, asrevised October, 1989,
 and Rules 1420, 1425 and 1450 as contained in the Union Pacific Rail
 road Company Maintenance of Way Rules, effective April , 1988.

 The Investigation was postponed until September 30, 1991. Second Vice Chairman Larsen and D. A. White,- Local Chairman, BMWE, appeared at the investigation and represented the claimant.

 R. A. Woods, Manager of Track Maintenance at Nampa, Idaho, testified at the investigation that the claimant called him at .approximately 1:40 p.m. on August 23, 1991 stating he had run into the back of the train. He testified that when he arrived at the scene of the incident, he commenced his investigation and found that the claimant had been operating the hy-rail uni-.; 62501-behind Union Pacific 2024 North, which had a track warrant number 460, and the claimant had a track warrant number 481, which had a line 9, which gave him the authority to follow the train to do his inspection.
 ' ~33s

 1' Award No. 54
 Page 2

 Track Maintenance Manager Woods testified that he asked the claimant
 how he and Mr. Hunt could have run into the back of the train and
 both employees stated they had fallen asleep. He testifed that the
 claimant said they were going about-15 miles per hour at the time
 they fell asleep. '-

 Mr. Woods further testified he sent the carto the section to get an estimate on repairs, and he was advised that the cost for repairs would exceed the value of the vehicle itself.

 Mr. Woods further testified he took the claimant and Mr. Hunt to the hospital, and both employees had minor injuries which required some treatment.

 Mr. Woods testified that the windows were down on the vehicle when he arrived at the scene, and he had the exhaust system checked, which was found to be in fine condition. He also testified there was nothing on the hy-rail which would induce drowsiness.

 The claimant testified that he had the rear-windows up, but he had the passenger and driver windows down, and the wing windows were cocked open. He also stated he had gas and grease on the vehicle which may have caused the drowsiness. The claimant stated he had hauled gas before but had never had it in the compartment with him. He stated they had hauled gas and grease like that before.

 Employee Boren testified there were some fumes- in the vehicle at all times. Both the claimant and Mr. Hunt. stated they believed the gas fumes and stuff in the back may have caused their sleepiness that day.

 The Union contends both men were-placed in an unsafe situation by being assigned a vehicle which should not carry track grease or gasoline. The Union further contends the Carrier is in violation of theAgreement by removing the employees from service before the hearing was held. The Union further contends that the personal records of the employees should not be entered into the hearing proceedings.

 The Board has studied the entire transcript of record and all of the evidence submitted. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the track grease or gasoline fumes, if any, were the cause of the claimant falling asleep.

 As many Boards have held, personal records of an employee may be introduced into an inviestigation but such may not be considered in determining.the guilt.of..employees. The only reason for introducing a peisonal recorn of an employee is to determine the degree of discipline to be assessed.
 . ~f 33 8

Further the Board finds that under the circumstances herein, there is no violation of the Agreement when the Carrier holds the employee out of service pending an investigation.

 Although this referee is adverse-to long suspensions, it is not in
 the authority of the referee to determine whether extended_suspen=
 sions are proper. The only authoritygranted to the referee is to
 determine if the discipline assessed is harsh, severe or unjust.
 Perhaps it should be pointed out that it is =to thedetriment of the
 Carrier, as well as to the employee, to assess long-periods of
 discipline.

 Under the circumstances herein the Board has no authority to set _ the discipline aside.

 AWARD: Claim denied.

                                  i .~r~

                                  Union Member


                                  Carrier Member