Claimant: D. M. Fullmer


PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
 TO and
 DISPUTE- Southern Pacific Lines
 STATEMENT 1. That the Carrier's decision to assess
 OF CLAIM Claimant a one (1) working day suspension
 without pay 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.

 The Claimant was a Motor Grader Operator in the Track-Sub Department. He had over 28 years of service on February 16,
 1996. On that day he was assigned to assist in laying rail -
 across the I Street Bridge at Sacramento, California. At one
 point, in order to move the 781-rail, he had to attach tongs to a'
 spreader bar. As he attempted to place the bolt through the
 clevis to hold the two-together, the spreader bar apparently
 moved and he pinched his finger.

 As a result of the-injury, the Claimant received a charge letter dated February 21, 1996. The charge letter advised the Claimant toatterLd an investigation on February 29, 1996 to determine if he had violated the following Rules of the Safety and General-Rules For All Employees, effective April 10, 1994:
      Rule 1.1 Safety


    Safety is the most important element in performing dutiesObeying the rules is essential to job-safety and continued employment.


    It is the responsibility of every employee to exercise care to avoid injury to themselves or others. Working safely is a condition of employment with the Company. The Company will not permit any employee to take an unnecessary risk in the performance of duty.


      No job is so important, no service so urgent, that we cannot take the time to perform all work safely.


      Rule 23.2 Protection of Body Parts


      Do not place your hands, fingers,. . .in a position where they might be caught, pinched or crushed. . .


After the hearing the Carrier reviewed the transcript and issued the Claimant a one (1) day suspension without pay. The matter was appealed by the Organization on behalf of the Claimant.

 Certainly a one (1) day suspension without pay is not unreasonable discipline for an employee who works in an unsafe manner. This would be true even in the case ofthe Claimant who has over 28 years of very good service to the Cqrrier,la fact. obviously considered by the Carrier in assessing -the penalty. However, in reviewing the record in this case, the Board is simply not convinced the Carrier met -ts burden of.demonstrating that the Claimant failedto work in an unsafe manner. Nothing in the record proved that it was the- Claimant who failed to do something which would have prevented his accident. In fact, the Carrier witness did say that when the Claimant kicked the spreader he was performing his work safely.-- The record does contain some alternatives for handling the tongs_and the spreader bar from that point forward, but, there is nothing concrete to demonstrate how the Claimant erred in his handling_of the equipment. Absent such a showing, the Board cannot uphold the discipline issued the Claimant.

 2
                                              qy~-n3


                          AWARD


The claim is sustained:

                              Carol J.- Neutral


submitted:

 May 21, 1996
 Denver, Colorado

 3