BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS )
 VS. ) Parties to Dispute
 )
 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY )

 STATEMENT OF CLASM:

    Claim in behalf of Engineer L. M. Engh, Union Pacific Railroad former Chicago and North Western Transportation Company, for compensation for all lost time including time spent at the investigation and that this incident be removed from Claimant's personal record when she was investigated on the following charge:


        "Your responsibility in connection with the personal injury you sustained at Roseport, Minnesota, at approximately 7:00 a.m., December 2, 1994 while employed as Engineer on WSS89 on duty at South St. Paul at 0230 on December 2, 1994."


                        FINDINGS


      Upon the whole record and all the evidence, the Board


finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within
                                                A.13 .UO . 5383

                                                ,qwp N~.558


the meaning o£-the Raiiway" habo= Act, as amended, arid that~tne' Board is duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.
 Claimant Engineer was found responsible in connection with a personal injury sustained by herself. She was disciplined with five (5) days suspension.
 The essential facts are that Claimant slipped and fell on ice while placing her travel baggage in a cab. She was taken to a hospital where she was examined and treated for a sore lower back.
 At the investigation there was considerable discussion of the usage of cleats during icy conditions and the lack of such equipment in a size that would fit Claimant.
 A similar case was handled in NRAB Award 24210 (BLE v. C&NW). In that case a personal injury was also involved and the Board held, in part, as follows:

          "Since the effective date of the Discipline Policy,.Claimant had received £wo Letters of Review, which are not considered discipline,

          but had not received a Letter of -

          Warning. Thus, he had not been put,

          on notice that he was subject to


                          _2_

                                              pLa N6- 15-323

                                              faw o tea- ~5~a


          the discipline system, as provided in paragraph (a) above. Furthermore, we cannot find that Claimant's conduct meets the standards set forth in paragraph (b), which would permit- the Carrier to assess a five day suspension upon an employee who had not already received a Letter of Warning. While his conduct may have been negligent, it was not of such a serious nature that it would warrant discipline under this provision."

Previous decisions should be followed unless they are palpably erroneous. This one is not. We adopt its findings here and sustain the instant claim.

      Claim is sustained.


                          ORDER

The Carrier is ordered to make this Award effective within thirty (30) days from the date shown below.

 Employee Member Ca" er

                  Chairman an''1Neutral Member


Dated: S ~,/