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 ten
(10) working days was excessive, 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





                                              J


of the crane and hit electrical wiring. As a result of this accident, he was charged with the possible violation of portions of Rules K, 607, and 622 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Maintenance of Way Employes and Rule 3 of the Rules and Regulations for the Safe Operation and Care of Work Equipment. The rules cited read: Rule K, Paragraph 3:

      Employes must inform themselves as to the location of structures of obstructions where clearances are close. Rule 607:


      Conduct: Employes must not be careless of the safety of themselves or others . . . . Rule 622:


      Safety Rules: Employes must have a copy, be conversant with and comply with safety rules issued in separate book or other form. Rule 3:


      Equipment shall not be operated in a manner to endanger life, limb or property.


      A) Warning signs reading, "Unlawful to

      operate this equipment within 10 feet of

      high voltage lines of 50,000 volts or less"

      shall be posted and maintained in plain view

      of the operator and a driver. Also, warning

      sign reading, "Unlawful to operate this

      equipment within 10 feet of high voltage

      lines of 50,000 volts or less shall be

      located on each side of the boom on all -

      automotive, track work, and shop equipment

      which is equipped with boom type work

      devices, regardless of assignment.


Following the investigation the Claimant received a letter dated April 29, 1988, advising him he was suspended for a period of ten (10) working days for violating the above mentioned

                            2

rules.
The Board believes the Claimant's actions in this case are simply inexcusable. He failed to perform the relatively simple task of making sure there was clearance before he moved his equipment into position. His failure in this respect cannot be excused by the absence of a "helper". The wires were not something which appeared suddenly, but, existed before he ever began his task and could have been spotted by inspecting the location. Nor is the Claimant any less culpable because he was unfamiliar with the area. For this reason alone, he should have been more thorough in his observations before starting his work.
The Claimant has a fairly good employment record and a lengthy tenure. However, the seriousness of the accident, which could have resulted in fatalities, along with the fact the accident could very easily have been prevented by the normal execution of his job, justifies the penalty issued in this case.

      The Claimant was afforded a complete and fair hearing.


AWARD

The claim is denied.

                          Carol J. amperini, Neutral


Submitted:

September 30, 19$8
Denver, Colorado

                            3