The Board, upon the whole record and on the evidence, finds that the parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; that this Board is duly constituted by agreement of the parties; that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing.
Claimant sustained an injury to two of the fingers on his right hand. One finger was merely bruised while the index finger required five sutures to close a cut. The injury occurred during the renewal of a road crossing. The gang was placing a guard rail next to the main line running rail at the time of the injury. A Trackhoe machine was being used to snug the guard rail up against the running rail before it was spiked in place. The gap between the two rails was approximately three inches. Claimant was in the act of setting a spike between the two rails when the Trackhoe inadvertently caused the guard rail to tip into the running rail and pinch Claimant's hand.
Our review of the record reveals no procedural shortcomings of significance. The Carrier raised the same procedural objection in this case as we addressed in Award No. 20. As explained in that award, we find the Carrier waived the objection on the property.
his injury. He admits he knew the Trackhoe was being used to pull the loose guard rail closer to the running rail. He also admits he facing away from the Trackhoe. According to the gang foreman, the job briefing that morning cautioned employees to stay away from the rail until the machine stopped. While not specifically recalling this part of the briefing, Claimant concedes it may have been said. Had Claimant watched the Trackhoe and waited until it stopped its movement, his injury would likely not have happened. He thus bears some culpability for the injury.