PARTIES Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes
 TO and
 DISPUTE Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western
 Lines)
 STATEMENT That the Carrier's decision to suspend
 OF CLAIM Claimant from its service for a period of one
 (1) day was excesslve, unduly harsh and in
 abuse of discretion, and in violation of the
 terms and provisions of the current Collective
 Bargaining Agreement.
 That because of the Carrier's failure to
 sustain and support the charges by
 introduction of substantial bona fide evidence
 that the Carrier now be required to compensate
 Claimant for all loss of earnings he suffered,
 and that the charges be removed from his
 record.



After conducting a hearing on August 7, 1987 at Eugene,

Oregon, the Carrier determined the Claimant was in violation of



                                            9Y7-~


the Rule A and Rule I of the Rules and Regulations of the Maintenance of Way and Structures of the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The rules read:

      Rule A:


      Safety is of the first importance in the discharge of duty. obedience to the rules is essential to safety and to remaining in service. Rule I:


      Employes must exercise care to prevent injury to themselves or others. They must be alert and attentive at all times when performing their duties and plan their work to avoid injury.


The Claimant received a letter dated August 24, 1987, advising him he had been suspended for one (1) day, September 1, 1987.

 On June 25, 1987, the Claimant was loading kegs of spikes onto a push car. As he was manuevering one keg into place, his arm brushed another keg and either a rough part of the keg or something protruding from the keg cut his arm. The injury was severe enough to warrant stitches. He was taken to the doctor for medical treatment although he did not want to seek medical help or report the accident.

 This Board has always recognized that some accidents are unavoidable. Certainly this accident wasn't intentional. The work associated with the work of the Maintenance of Way almost always has an element of risk. It's inherent in the job.

9,17-5-~


Because the possibility of injury is almost continuously present, employes need to be constantly alert.

 It seems in this case, the Claimant, while not careless in the true sense, was not as observant as he should have been. His record indicates he has had numerous accidents over his twenty-two (22) years of service, several resulting from a lack of attentiveness on the part of the Claimant. The Claimant has been cautioned concerning his personal injuries at least three times.

 Sometimes in order to protect the safety of employes, as well as, the interests of the Employer, it is necessary for the Carrier to institute discipline against an employe who seems to have lapses of concentration while doing potentially dangerous work. The failure of the Carrier to discipline the Employe for his lack of attention may well result in a more serious injury to the Employe.

 In considering all the facts of this case and the Claimant's record, this Board believes the one (1) day suspension was justified.

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

                            3

qY7 - -15G,
                            Carol J., ZOperinid Neutral

                                  / r.


Submitted:

 February 5, 1988
 Denver, Colorado