Case No. 9 STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

 Appeal of the thirty-day deferred suspension issued to Claimant J.D. Raab for alleged violation of Engineering Life Manual Section 11, Rule Lb, job safety briefings, in connection with an incident that occurred on March 23, 2006 FINDINGS:
 By letter dated April 5, 2006, the Claimant was notified to appear at a formal hearing and investigation to "ascertain the facts and to determine whether or not you violated company rules, instructions or policies when you allegedly failed to use a sling when lifting a steel grillage with the boom truck" at the Carrier's material yard in North Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. After a postponement, the investigation was conducted on May 5, 2006. By letter dated May 25, 2006, the Claimant was notified that as a result of the hearing, he was found guilty of violating Engineering Life Manual Section 11, Rule Lb., job safety briefings. This letter further informed the Claimant that he was being assessed a thirty-day deferred suspension. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on the Claimant's behalf, challenging the Carrier's assessment of a thirty-day deferred suspension. The Carrier denied the claim.
 The Carrier initially contends that there is relevant evidence to support the conclusion that the Claimant violated the cited rule. The Carrier asserts that the record establishes that the Claimant and his co-worker did not conduct a proper job briefing. The


Carrier maintains that the failure to conduct a proper job briefing resulted in a piece of

 mo·ari~ c.lis,r,ir,n V~nm *ho .. , 1 _FEL- 1 ,., , ,.1. _~ a.:., -- ..C i ~._ ,.~, ,i
 .~."~._.U, ~ayytt.~-, -.Vttt Ul1 srayylc Vl ulc UVVIII Llucn, JLlmlug a piece of ylaLC JLccl on which the Claimant's co-worker was standing, and ejecting the Claimant's co-worker into the air and resulting in an injury.
 The Carrier points out that a better means of rigging could have been used while performing the lift, and this could have prevented the injury. The Carrier argues that the Claimant and his co-worker chose the negative, instead of the positive, situation in performing their duties on the date in question.
 The Carrier ultimately contends that the instant claim should be denied in its entirety.
 The Organization initially contends that the record shows that job briefings were conducted. As for the assertion that the loading process should be stopped for another iob briefing each time a piece of equipment of differing weight, size- or dimension is loaded, the Organization insists that this was a routine operation, and there was no reason

 *n ivy- frn_hla ~X~I4h roral.i tU t1.e ~alll~l_ _....E:,... Wag .. «i-Uaa~l Ul._.._.. ...1'..:6...:_...,.»
 .,v -rvm uvuvav. TY m11 ay to lV Lit. V0.11tGt J asJG1L1V1t Ltlal a UGLLGl 111Ga11J Vl ll6b'lllg
 could have been adopted, the Organization emphasizes that several lifting accessories
 exist that may have afforded safer lifting of that particular piece of equipment, but the
 Carrier did not provide any of those accessories. Instead, the only additional piece of
 equipment that the Carrier provided was a single, feeble strap. The Organization asserts
 that because the Claimant had performed this identical lift in the past, it would be
 inconceivable to "fool around" with trying to insert a strap beneath a 700-poind weight
 laying flat on a flat surface. The Organization insists that the Claimant chose the safest
 2
                                            ?L'8 G9 15

                                            R o.rd


method to lift that piece of material.

          `rha ~lm~ni~otinn nc.c.o~cg *l,g hh;- ; -;.io-*. -i7 1- o ...s

          ~uv va~util~u~i~it uJmLJ tt1UL u11o imidmt wAJ caused by e4uy111~11L

failure, and it cites a report describing internal failures of valves in the grapple mechanism as conclusive evidence of defective equipment. The Organization argues that there also were "a lot of piles" of poorly stacked, loose material. The Organization contends that a number of Carrier officials may have passed these piles of junk without assessing potential danger.
 The Organization emphasizes that although an accident occurred, this does not, by itself, constitute a rule violation. The Organization insists that the Claimant did not violate any rules, so the discipline at issue should be immediately reversed and removed from the Claimant's record.
 The Organization ultimately contends that the instant claim should be sustained in its entirety.

      The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this


Rnardl

      This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that


,.t,. _rr_ ·J_ .,
 uicre is sufficient e0ucnce in me record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of violating Carrier rules, instructions, and policies when he failed to use a sling when lifting a steel grillage with a boom truck on March 23, 2006.
 The record reveals that the Claimant did not use the proper rigging that should have been used when performing the lift. The Claimant was the operator and should have used the proper lifting technique; and if he had, the injury that resulted may not have 3

` 'fit ~ ~91~

                                              A ~a.~`d 9


occurred. It was the boom operator's responsibility to use the sling and he did not do so.

      nnrp thic Rnarll hac ~o~orm:noa ·1,n4 *1-0-0 : ..FC: ..:....,1 ,. ,:-7,...,.., :.. El._... _.7 ..

      ------ .---- ---..uo uvwaaauii~u ~' U~ tJ JUllllillilll lJVIUG11~G III 11161ecolU LV

support the guilty finding, we next turn our attention to the type of discipline imposed. r ms Board will not set aside a Carrier's imposition of discipline unless we find its actions to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
 The record reveals that the Claimant in this case was issued a thirty-day deferred suspension. Given the Claimant's length of service as well as his previous record, this Board cannot fmd that the action taken by the Carrier was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the claim must be denied. AWARD:

      The claim is denied. P''/~


                        TER R. M YE S


                          tral M*rrbr


    1

O 'RATION MBER
 DATED: ~- ~'- _ b`~
4