Claimant: K. A. Jenkins


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 five (5) 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, a Track Foreman, was operating Boom Truck 7800-9027E on December 17, 1995, at Carson Street crossing in Dolores,. California. Around 5:30 p.m., he attempted to drive his truck between a barricade and a pole at Carson Street crossing at Dolores, California. Either because the opening was too narrow or because-his back wheels slid, the truck hit the pole and caused $2500.00 worth of damage to the front of the truck.

 On January 4, 1996, the Claimant received a charge letter outlining the incident and advising him to be present for a formal investigation to be held at the Office of the Division Engineer in Bloomington, California. The Claimant was charged with the possible violation of the following Rules of the southern Pacific Lines Safety and General Rules for All Employees:
      Rule 1.6 Conduct:


      Employees must not-be:


      1. Careless of the safety of themselves or others


      Rule 72.12 Automotive Equipment


      (f) No motor vehicle is to be set in motion until it is

      known that the way is clear. Care must be exercised in

      parking and driving, either on or off-the right of way, to

      avoid damage to equipment or injury to occupants due to

      conditions of routatraveled on account--of presence of

      concealed obstructions or holes, and movement must not be

      made until investigation indicates that theroute is safe.

      It must be known that vehicle will clear all overhead

      restrictions before passing under same.


There can be no doubt the Claimant intentionally drove his truck through a relatively narrow opening when he had a definite alternativeroute. The fact the Claimant may have driven through that same opening 25 times before without incidence does not negate the risk involved in the move. The Carrier has proved to the satisfaction of this Board that the Claimant failed to give adequate consideration to what hewas doing. His relatively short tenure with the Carrier cannot be considered mitigating. The penalty is not excessive under the circumstances and certainly fits the crime.

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

                                    L zr~-


Carol-J. Zamperini, Neutral submitted:

 May 23, 1996 -
 Denver, Colorado

                            2