AWARD NO. 23
 CASE K). 27
 PARE TO THE DISPUTE
Chicaso and North Western Trnation Ocarpwt° STATEMENT OF CLAIM#




and his personal record be cleared of the discipline assessed."
 OPN OF BDARDs
 Claimant F. D. Clap is a regularly assigned Machine Operator. On
 September 14! 1976, he vas operating a backhoe machine near Dixon, Illinois!
 aben Assistant Mvision M ptr--Fngineex P. L. Roger arrived at the job site.
 Claimant had descended frost the cab of his machine and the ATE noticed that he
 was wed neither a hard h:t nor safety glasses. Mr. Roger im, tely advised
 Claimant that he would be issued a safety ren, for not following Safety flan.
 Tire next day, September 15, 1976, Claimant vas sexed with a notice to at an
 investigation into *Your failure to wear safety glasses during work hours on
 September l4, 1976, at approximately 10#00 a.m.,, while working in the vicinity
 of River Street, in Udxon, Illinois." At the investigation it was estsMshed that
 Claimant ways not wearing safety glasses when he was observed by the ADM. In
 fact, Claimant testified that notwithstanding various safety regulations he never
 had worn safety glasmes or e. hard hat while crperrttirg r machinery during his 3-1/2 years of employment. We do not find persuasive t1hh,a organisation's conten tion that the record establishes x mutually accepted practice whereby suployees were not reraired to wear safety equipment while operating machinery. Zb the contrary, the record shows that Carrier did riot acquiesce in this so-called practice anti x, general. safety reminder was communicated to all eoployees on the Division, Including Claimant, on ,huge 13, 1975, emphasising the wed of safer glasses, hard hats and safety shoes in the performance of duties. 8o far as the record shows, the safety regulations are a reasonable exercise of management discretion to attempt to protect employees from injury and the Carrier from liability. In every sense of the word employees disregard the safety regulations at their peril.
 The only question res~a.ining is whether the imposition of a thirty-day suspension is unreasonably harsh for failure to wear safety glasses. At the investigative hearing Carrier witness Roger read into the record alleged aaccerpta from Claimant's personnel record which purported to record the issuance of two prior "safety reminders" for not wearing safety glasses. A number of awards hate eomented critically and in some cases overturned the assessment of discipline where Carrier has so intermingled past transgressions with present charges that a reasonable review cannot determine whether an employee was found culpable on the basis of solid evidence of the instant misconduct or mete upon an impermissible inference based upon earlier misconduct. See, e. . Third Division Awards 1113 and 11308. It should be understood that review of the employee's personnel record is appropriate to determine the mount of discipline to be assessed once Carrier has demonstrated by substantial competent evidence that the employe* is culpable
of the misconduct with which he is charged. But the personnel record is relevant
 only to the question of the amount of discipline to be imposed and must not be
 permitted to enter into the determination of whether Claimant was culpable. A
 careful review of the transcript pers us that competent evidence including
 Claimant's oven admission established that he did not wear the safety glasses and
 accordingly ire cannot conclude from this particular record that Carrier improperly
that the Organisation has raised a valid objection to the apparent use bar Carrier
 of the two prior alleged "safety reminders" as bases for increasing the severity
 of the discipline assessed for the September 314 1976, failure to wear safety
 glasses. We are not prepared to hold on this record that letters of reprimand
 nay never constitute discipline, with all the implications such a holding sight
 have on related questions of applicability of dale 19 and subsequent consideration
 when reviewing personnel records to detetnine the smaunt of discipline to impose
 for proven later offenses. Cf. Third Division Awards 182Ltt, 19713 and 21335.
 Hat it does appear to us that neither Carrier mr the Organisation can have it both
 ways. So far as we can tell frog the record before us, the "safety rsn v
 did not constitute discipline and accordingly Carrier's assertions are not well
 founded that Claimant was twice "reprimanded" before the =ore severe discipline
 of the thirty-dear suspension was imposed. Viewing the came in tome of progressive
 discipline, trim incident of September 14, 1976, is the first proven instance. of
 safety rule violation by the Claimant. In our judgment a thirty-day suspension,
 without pay is excessively severe for a first offense of this kind. Since the
 record indicates that Carrier erroneously concluded that this was a third offense
 rather than a first offense for discipline purposes, we shall reduce the penalty
 imposed by two-bhhirdr. The itncontradieted record indicates that Claimant lost
 _3-
 -11 19

 168 hours apt his straight time rate as n result ~)f the penalty lmposed by Carrier. Carrier shall compensate ClaimAnt at his straight tine rate for two--thirds of the time lost (112 hours).

 Public Lair Board No. 18411, upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds as tollowe t

 1. That the Uaxrlar and Employee involved in this dispute are, respectively,, Gxrrier and EVlofee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act;
 2. that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved hereinf and




                          Claim sustained to the extent indioated in the Opinion.

                          Carrier is direoted to comply with this Award within thirty

                          (30) days of issuance.


                nuns 8. s en, an


C . !t. Serge, Ehp o ae Member . W. 3 sge, er Heir

 Dated--'^^---