The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

1. That the Carrier's decision to issue a Formal Reprimand with one (1)

year probation to Southern Region Welder M. F. Parker was unjust.

Z. That tire Carrier new expunge Claimant Packers record and pay for ail wage toes as a result of Investigation held at 9a?0 a.m. on February 15, 2001 continuing forward and/or otherwise made whole, because the Carrier did not introduce substantial, credible evidence that proved that the Claimant violated the rules enumerated In their decision, and even If Claimant violated the rules enumerated in the decision, format Reprimand and one (1) year probation on his record is extreme and harsh discipline under the circumstances.

3. That the Carrier violated the Agreement particularly but not limited to Rule 13 and Appendix 1i because !he Carrier did not Introduce substantial, credible evidence that proved die Claimant violated the rules enurtmnted in their decision.

Claimant was charged with not looking when he crossed two main lines and a yard lead track.

The Carrier witness testified he saw Claimant when he moved to the driver side of the company truck and crossed three tracks without turning his head either left or right untie he came to the fourth track, the scale track, upon which sat an idling engine. This occurred at about 7":60 AM according to Carrier witness.

Claimant's witness, who drove the company truck and who wits sitting In the drtvees side watching Claimant cross the track ted it was between 8:10 AM and 8:3n AM when this occurred. This witness also testified that safety, being everyone's business, and particularly since Claimant was his responsibility, hey did observe Claimant crossing the tracks and had he not proceeded sadly he would hairs alerted Claimant of his responsibility. Thin witness further testified that Claimant did look both ways before crossing die tracks.

Claimant testified that when they were approaching the area wherein they were scheduled to atop, he looked for traffic on the line and sew nothing. He also tested when he stepped out of the passengst's aide, he looked to the tell to see It there was any mouernent

Claimant did not, however, took both ways when he crossed each of the three tracks. Claimant's negligence can perhaps be explained by two factors; on* being this was form B protected territory and the second being the safety first lecture cautioning everyone to be aware of their footing.

Under the circumstances as outlined above, and in consideration of the 21 years of service marred only by four AWOL. charges (3 a 1880, 1 in 1886), that a record mark is too severe.

One of the purposes of discipline it to correct violations and by so doing let it be

ard No. (Casr No. 183