Award No. 50 Docket No. 5? PARTIES: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes TO' DISPUTE: Chicago end North Western Transportation Cc -nany





FINDINGS
This Boar:?, upon the whole record and all the evidence,finds and holds that the employes and the Carrier involved, Pre respectively employes and Carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act 2s amended, and that the Board has jurisdiction ovqr the dispute therein.

 Claimant, with about nine years of service with the Carrier at the time of the occurrence giving rise to the dispute herein, wps employed as a machine operator at Adams, Wisconsin. At about 1:00 P.M., Nove-ber 1, 1:983, claimant wps observed by the Trainmaster driving spikes and not wearing a ha;d hat as required by Ccrri-r's safety rules. He was again observed about 2.:15 P.M. by the Trainmaster workins without a hard hat. On November 3, 1983, claimant was directed to as formal investix?tion scheduled for 11.:00 A.M., November 10, 1993, r_n the charge:

The investigation was postponed and conducted on November '15, 1983. A transcript of the investigation has been made a part of the record. Following the investigation claimant was assessed discipline of thirty days suspension. -

 At the investigation, claimant's representative objected to the charge, contending that "To determine your responsibility" indicated prejudgment. We see no basis for such contention. The charxe was to place claimant on notice thay the purpose of the
 SBA-924
Award No. 90
 Docket No. $8
 Page 2

 investigation was to determine whether or not he violated the safety rules. The Carrier points out that the language used in the charge has been standard on the C$rrier's property for decades. Our experience on this Hoard seems to bear out the Carrier's position, as in numerous prior cases the identical language has been used in notices of charge. We reject the contention of the Organization in this respect.

 In the investigation substantial evidence .ins presented that claimant was driving ~spikes.without having his hart hat on. Claimant admitted working on a job requiring him to wear a hard hat, bat he was not wearing it. There can be no serious question that claimant was in violation of the Safety Rules: Claimant's past record; introduced into the investigation, shows that he had two prior safety reminders.

 The contention was-made in the investigation and in the Organization's submission, that entering an employe's past record into an investigation transcript precludes a fair and impartial investigation. Some few awards of the National Railroad Adjustment.Rcard have so held= howeter, in many awards in which this referge has participated, we have consistently held that the inclusion of an employs's past record in the transcript did not preclude a fair, and umpartial hearing. We adhere to that principle here. The past record may only properly be used in determining the discipline to be imposed for a proven offense; but may not be used to prove the offense with which charged.

 The Organization also contends that the assessment of . thirty days actual suspension represents excessive and undue punishment. We cannot. accept such contention, considering claimant's prior record. See Awards Nos. 39 and 42 of this Hoard concerning safety equipment,. particularly hard hats.

 A V A E D
Claim denied.

 _ c

      aL~ v

C&zler ber

 DATEDs(Vc-e

 Labor Member