Upon the whole record and all the evidence, after hearing, the Board finds that the parties herein are carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and this board is duly constituted by agreement and has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter.
This award is based on the facts and circunastartces of this particular case and shall not serve as a precedent in arty other case,
On March 8, 200'7, Claimant was working as a Laborer on Gang TS-3 3 . He was using a spring-type chain binder to secure equipment to a flat car. The chain binder sprung back and struck him in the face, breaking his jaw. The Organization argues that the mere fact of a personal injury does trot establish culpability for the injury and cannot be the basis of discipline. We agree, but the record establishes much snore than the mere fact that Claimant was injured.
The record establishes that for safety purposes, two employees are required to secure a spring-type chain binder. However, Claimant took it upon himself to try to secure the binder alone. As Claimant indicated in his Personal Injury Report, "[EJvidently I wasn't as strong as I thought I was." The evidence further indicates that the safe way to secure a spring-type chain binder is to pull it closed so as to keep the employee out of the line of fire should the binder spring back. Claimant, however, pushed the binder closed, placing his face in the line of tire, resulting in his injury.
The record further establishes that Claimant had been trained on the proper way to use the chain binders and had viewed a video reinforcing that training before he began his duties on the slate in question. The evidence of Claimant's culpability is overwhelming. We hold that Carrier proved the charge by substantial evidence.
