Award No. 16
 Docket No. 16
 PARTIES:: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO
 DISPUTE: Chicago and North Western Transportation Company





FINDINGS:

 This Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and hold's that the employes and the Carrier involved, are respectively emrloyes and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, qnO that the Board has jurisdiction ov r the dispute herein.

 Prior to the occurrence giving rise to the dispute herein, claimant, with about four years of service, was employed as a Burro Crane operator on Carrier's Illinois Division.

 On November 23, 1982, while unloading scrap ties at Madison, Illinois, yard, the boom or cable of claimant's crane struck or came in contact with an overhead electric line. On November 24, 1982, claimant and a trackman working with him, were notified to attend an investigation on December 1, 1982, on the charge:

The investigation was conducted as scheduled and on December 8, 1982,olaimant was notified of the discipline imposed:

A copy of the transcript of the investigation bps been made a part of the record.
                                                Award No. 16 Docket No. 16 Page 2.


Rule 1106 of Carrier's Rules of the Engineering Department reads:

              "1106. In handling cranes or pile drivers, or doing work likely to interfere with overhead wires or other obstructions, every precaution must be taken to prevent damage."


          The claimant testified in the investigation:


        "Q. While unloading, did the boom of your crane contact a high wire?

        A. It was cloudy theit day, I'm not real sure it made contact with the wire, all that happened vies my indicator gave me a signal, I looked Up to the wire and saw an arc, but my boom was not that close to the wire."


The trackman who was working with claimant testified, and claimant so acknowledged, that just a few minutes prior to the incident, he warned claimant that the boom of the crane was close to th° electric wire.

 On the Form 148, completed at the time of the incident by claimant, and read into the investigation, in describing how the eccident occurred, claimant stated:

    "Was unloading scrap ties and touched. wire with cable, the wind was blowing wire around."


It was established in the investigation that the electrician who inspected the high wire following the incident, stated that it had burned insulation off around the wire.

 From our review of the transcript, we find. substantial evidence to support the charge against claimant. The record also shows that about two months previously claimant had been disciplined to the extent of thirty days deferred suspension for a similar occufrence. We find no proper basis to interfere with the discipline imposed by the Carrier in the present case.

 The Organization raises two procedural arguments which it contends deprived claimant of a fair and impartial hearing: (1) that the officer who conducted the investirration did rot render, the decision; and (2) thet the deciding officer was also the first appeals officer. Both of these contentions have been dealt with
                                              S'~ gay


                                              Award No. 16

                                              Docket-No. 16

                                              Page 3


in our Award No. 14, Docket No. 14. We see no necessity for repeating here what was said on these contentions in Awerd No. 14, except, by reference, to incorporate that portion of Award No. 14 herein.

                    A W A A D


        Claim denied.


                    Chairman, Neutral Member


Carrier Membe - 'Labor Mem er
 DATED: o4_.