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
 three (3) days 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 prove
 and support the charges by introduction of
 substantial bona fide evidence, that Carrier
 now be required to compensate Claimant for any
 and all loss of earnings suffered, and that
 the charges be removed from his record.
 FINDINGS



foot, three inch piece of 136 pound closure rail at Klamath
 Falls yard. While he was actually participating in the work,
 one of the crew, in the process of performing a four-men lift,
 did not comply with proper body mechanics and suffered a pulled
 rib. Because the Claimant was the Foreman resonsible for the
 crew, he was issued a charge letter and advised to appear at a
 formal investigation which was eventually held on May 6, 1988.
 By letter dated May 19, 1988, the Claimant was advised the
 Carrier considered the evidence from the formal hearing
 sufficient to determine he had violated Rules A, I, 607, and
 1051 of the Rules of the Maintenance of Way and Structures.
 Particularly those portions reading:

      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. Rule 607: CONDUCT: Employes must not be:


      (1) Careless of the safety of themselves or others . . . . (2) Negligent;


      Indifference to duty, or to the performance of duty, will not be condoned.


      Rule 1051: RESPONSIBILITY: They have charge of and are responsible for the safety of their men and for the safe . . . .maintenance of track . . . .assigned to. them.


      Admittedly, the job of Foreman often lacks the distinction


                            2

it may deserve, nevertheless, there is a responsibility which is inherent in the job. A foreman has the responsibility of directing his crew. As such, he must be aware of the need for safety and must use his authority to avoid injury to those in his charge. In the case before us, the Claimant did not position himself in a way which would have allowed him to observe what was happening during the lift. As a result, one of his men attempted to help lift the rail while out of position. Even though the injured man was experienced and certainly shares the blame, the Foreman is not faultless.
 A foreman is not excused from his obligations simply because a crew working with him is experienced. His responsibilities remain the same. The Claimant not only failed to observe what was happening, but he was negligent when he failed to set up a lift signal.
 While we cannot argue that a reenactment is not the most accurate way of determining what actually happened, in this case it did provide sufficient information. Certainly if the reenactment was in any way faulty, the crew could have expressed their doubts at the time. Even the Claimant did not seem to feel a need to dispute the recounting of the incident. Therefore one has to assume the information provided was accurate.
 Finally, the Claimant testified it was necessary for him to help the crew and in so doing he was not in a position to observe every crew member. The Board does not believe that is a sufficient defense. The pertinent questions are whether the

                            3

Foreman properly positioned himself to observe how the men were preparing to lift the rail, and, whether he arranged a lift signal, as he should have done.
 The Claimant was afforded a fair hearing. The penalty issued was not excessive under the circumstances.

                          AWARD


The claim is denied.

 /Z Carol Jperin~. , Neutral

 Submitted:

 September 7, 1988 Denver, Colorado

 4