The Claimant, Paul E. Whitmer, entered Carrier's service on march 16, 1992. On January 17, 1994, Carrier issued Notice of investigation to Claimant to "develop the facts and place your responsibility, if any, on charges of being an unsafe employee, having accrued three personal injuries, and one unsafe act on duty, since becoming employed ....March 16, 1992.° The Notice also identified the date and type of injury for the three injuries and the unsafe act. Investigation was scheduled and held on January 31, 1994. On February 4, 1994, Claimant was advised that the charge of being an unsafe employee was sustained and that he was assessed dismissal from service. Claimant's dismissal was appealed PLB 5666
by the organization up to and including Carrier's highest designated officer for such appeals. Being unable to resolve the dispute, the parties referred the case to this Board for resolution.
The record before this Board is voluminous. Our extensive study thereof persuades us that the Investigation was fair and impartial and that all witnesses were sequestered. Claimant was present and represented by representative of his choice. Both were permitted to present evidence and cross-examine carrier witnesses.
investigation reveals that Claimant and the organization were made aware of the specifics of the charges against Claimant which gave them sufficient information on which to prepare appropriate defense. Likewise, the arguaent that Claimant was disciplined for violation of rules not cited in the charges cannot serve as grounds for reversal of the discipline assessed. Numerous prior awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board hold that citation of rules in the statement of charges i8 not' necessary to a precise charge. For example, in Third Division Award 20285, the Board held:
Award 32 of PLB 3199 dealt with a comparable dispute between the parties to this dispute and is cited with favor by this Board.
The organization has argued that Carrier did not follow the terms of its Safety Intervention Policy in dealing with the Claimant's lack of concern for safety of himself and his fellow employees. Such an argument is not supported by the record before this Board. The record indicates that Carrier progressed Claimant through each phase of the Policy up to and including the final phase, discipline, which was invoked on January 17, 1994, following his elbow injury on January 9, 1994. Claimant was counseled and schooled in safety matters, all of which failed to improve his safety performance.
After extensive study of the record before this Board, we conclude that carrier sustained its charge of "being an unsafe employee." Claimant sustained 3 personal injuries in a little over 1 1/2 years of eaployment, all because he failed to be alert and exercise care in the performance of his work. For example, injury sustained Decemmber 8, 1992, fractured right middle finger when door on diesel unit slammed on his finger. Safety Rule 4002(A), Opening or Closing Doors, states that employees must always use door handle to open or close doors and kgsg hands c~ nr of door side'or edge. Had he done so, he could have avoided injury. .
Secondly, the injury sustained April 1, 1993, soap burn on face. The record shows Claimant was not wearing his face shield.
PLB 5666. Finally, on January 9, 1994, Claimant failed to exercise caution and be alert to conditions present when he sustained injury to his left elbow.
Claimant's safety record compared with 4 employees directly above and below him on the seniority roster, which we find to be a reasonable manner in which to approach the question of whether Claimant is an "unsafe employee," reveals that he has experienced significantly more injuries than the others. Only 1 injury in the 4 employees below Claimant and 0 injuries in the 4 employees above Claimant. However, the organization asserts that the 5th employee above Claimant had experienced 2 injuries, and when compared to Claimant, there is no significant difference to justify finding Claimant an unsafe employee. Such argument overlooks the fact that the 5th employee above claimant has 6 ninths more service with Carrier than Claimant. We believe this makes a .significant difference. Also we note that with 2 injuries the 5th employee has not yet been progressed to the final phase of Carrier's Safety Intervention Policy .