PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company

 STATEMENT 1. That the Carrier's decision to suspend
 OF CLAIM Claimant from its service for a period of
 five (5) days was excessive, unduly harsh and
 in abuse of discretion and in violation of the
 terms and provisions of the Collective
 Bargaining Agreement.
 2. That because of the Carrier's failure to prove
 and support the charges by introduction of
 substantial bona fide evidence, that Carrier
 now be required to reinstate and compensate
 Claimant for any and all loss of earnings
 suffered, and that the charges be removed from
 his record. - -
 FINDINGS

 Upon reviewing the record, as submitted, I find that the Parties herein are Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, and that this Special Board of Adjustment is duly constituted and has jurisdiction of the Parties and the subject matter; with this arbitrator being sole signatory.

 After reviewing the record taken at a formal hearing held in Tucson, Arizona, February 18,1993, the Carrier determined the Claimant had violated Rule 965 of the Rules of the Maintenance of Way and Structures, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, on February 1, 1993, when he ran his Tie Crane over the east switch at Bon, MP 908.3, at a speed in excess of extreme caution and over 5 MPH. As a result, when 'the dispatcher attempted to realign the switch while the machine was over the switch points, the Tie Crane derailed and the Claimant was injured.

G~ ~ n1


The Claimant was charged with violating Rule 965, that part which reads:

      Rule 965. OPERATION OF TRACK CARS


      SWITCHES:. . .Operators must use extreme caution when running over switches. . .Reduce speed when approaching power operated switches, and do not pass over same in excess-of five miles per hour. . .


On the day of the incident, the Claimant was operating the Tie Crane on Tie Gang T-8. The Gang was waiting to obtain authority to exit the siding and enter the main track in an easterly direction. The switch at the east end had to be aligned before they could begin movement. Normally, the Foreman of the Gang would have received track and time and would have thrown the selector lever of the switch to the hand throw position. This would have allowed the Foreman to maintain control of the switch. However, the Foreman for some reason, left the switch in the motor mode which allowed the dispatcher to retain control of the switch. The crew began moving their equipment out of the siding. The Claimant was about sixth in line. As the Claimant moved his machine over the switch points at the east end of the siding, the dispatcher, for whatever reason, attempted to realign the switch. This action caused the Tie Crane, which was carrying nine ties, to derail. The Claimant suffered injuries to his back and hip.

 The organization argues that the Claimant did proceed very cautiously over the switch. Even though he may have "guestimated" his speed initially as between 15-20 MPH, there was no way he had of knowing his exact speed since there is no speedometer on his machine. In fact, there is no way any one could tell the speed at which he was operating his machine, the evidence against the Claimant is circumstantial. Besides, it was not his fault the dispatcher chose this particular time to throw the switch. If anything, the fault should lie with the dispatcher. The Claimant has not suffered a reportable injury during his tenure, further proof of the car-eful manner in which he approaches his work. He even tried to avoid reporting this accident. He worked the entire week before the pain became so severe he had to finally report the injury.

 The Carrier contends the Claimant is guilty as charged. Not only did he tell the Roadmaster, immediately after the accident, that he was going 15-20 MPH, but the Tie Crane traveled a distance of 40 feet after it derailed, which clearly indicates he was operating in excess of 5 MPH.

                            2

                                              C~U~- nl

J

                        DECISION


Contrary to the testimony of the Claimant, the Board believes that a machine carrying nine ties would not have gone 40 feet after derailing, if, it was being operated at a speed of 5 MPH. Instead, it is more likely that a machine carrying that much weight and traveling only 5 mph would have had so much inertia it would not have traveled very far after leaving the track. Therefore, the Board believes the carrier had sufficient support for its contention that the Claimant was traveling at a speed in excess of 5 MPH. The Claimant was, at least in part, responsible for the derailment.

 Even though the Claimant has a good employment record, the Board believes the penalty issued in this case, (5 day suspension) was reasonable under the circumstances.

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

                                      . _ t


                              Carol J. Zamperini Impartial Neutral


Submitted:

 July 14, 1993 Denver, Colorado

 3