3. The Claimant should be compensated for.the wage
 loss; he should be exonerated; and his record
 expunged.
 FINDINGS:
 Claimant Gregory D. Smith was employed by the carrier as a track foreman.
 On October 31, 2989, the Carrier notified the Claimant to appear for a formal investigation in. connection with the following charge:

 Violation of NRPC Rules of Conduct, Rule D.
 Company Policies and Procedures . . .
 Violation of NRPC Rules of Conduct, Rule B.
 Safety'. . .
 Specification: On Thursday, October 26, 1989, at
 approximately 2:45 p.m., equipment under your
 jurisdiction (per Rule 997 of Amtrak's Operating
 Rules and Instructions) was not properly secured
 resulting in injury to two employees.
 After one postponement, the hearing took place on November
 20, 1989. On December 1, 1989, the Carrier notified the Claimant

 that he had been found guilty of all charges and was being


 assessed discipline of a twenty (20) working day suspension. On December 8, 1989, the Claimant appealed his discipline. The Or4akzation also filed a claim on the Claimant's behalf, challenging his suspension, on January 26, 1990.
 The'Organization contends that Carrier erred in disciplining the Claimant since he was not the individual responsible for securing the machinery before leaving the job site on October 26, 1989, and that he was not the foreman in charge. The Claimant simply followed orders from his supervisor and left a qualified crane operator at the job site and, thus, did not commit any rule infraction.
 The Carrier thereafter denied the appeal on the grounds that although the Claimant was not the operator of the equipment, he did work with it on the date of the incident. The track was out of service in the Claimant's name, and the equipment in question was operated by an employee that the Claimant was responsible for supervising. The parties being unable to resolve the issues, this matter came before this Board.
 This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case and we find that there is not sufficient evidence in the record that the Claimant was guilty of violating the Company's safety rules on October 26, 1989. Therefore, the claim will have to be sustained.
 There is no question that the Burro Crane was not properly tied down on the date in question. However, it had been operated by an employee by the name of Vendetti and Mr. Vendetti had been required by his supervisor, Mr. Brown, to tie it up. Mr. Brown
_S4 X33- 5019 ,BCo

 also told the Claimant to go to Baltimore for some other type of work. The Burro Crane was clearly not the Claimant's crane and hejd~d not have the responsibility of tying it down on the occasion when it was not properly secured leading to the accident and injuries.
 The Claimant knew how to tie down the crane and had tied it down on prior occasions. However, there had been no requirement for him to do the tie up work on the occasion in question.
 Although the Claimant was not relieved of his normal responsibilities by Supervisor Brown, this Board cannot find that he had any responsibility for the incident in question since he was far enough removed from using the Burro Crane' to have that responsibility shifted to Mr. Vendetti by Mr. Brown.
 In order to substantiate discipline issued to an employee, the Carrier must meet its burden of proof that the Claimant was in violation of the rules. The Carrier has not done that in this case and therefore, the claim must be sustained. AWARD
Claim sustained. The discipline shall be removed from the Claimant's record and he should be made whole for all lost income resulting from th~o-da suspens' n.
                      Neut al ember


        Carrier Member /organization Member


Date:

                            3