Form 1 NATIONAL RAIIROAD
ADJUSTMELJT
BOARD Award No.
8531
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
8620
2-T&P-CM-' 80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United
( States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Texas and Pacific Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Texas and Pacific Railway Company violated Rule 24 of the
controlling agreement when they unjustly placed a letter of reprimand
on the personal record of Carman L. A. McDonald without affording him
an investigation.
2. That accordingly, the Texas and Pacific Railway Company be ordered to
remove the letter of reprimand from Carman McDonald's record.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act:
as approved June 21,
1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right
of.
appearance at hearing thereon.
The claimant herein seeks the removal of a letter dated September 26,
1978
from his personal file. The facts are uncontested. After suffering an eye
injury while straightening sill steps with a sledge hammer, the Car Foreman held
a conference with the claimant to discuss the accident and safety regulations. The
Car Foreman then wrote the September
26, 1978
letter to claimant summarizing
the substance of the meeting discussions. The letter was permanently placed in
the claimant's personal record file.
The organization argues that the foreman's September 26,
1978
correspondence
was a letter of reprimand which constitutes disciplinary action by the carrier.
Since the alleged discipline was assessed without notice and an investigation,
the carrier violated Rule
24
of the controlling agreement. The carrier
characterizes the meeting as a counseling session and the letter was a confirmation
of the subjects discussed at the conference. The letter, according to the
x
c :ru-ier, ;::;~ i.r.~t-:rc.'.~.d. Lo i_: rive the cla ....ar.t s s:sf-ety record.
Form 1
Pa ge 2
Award No.
8531
Docket No.
8620
2-T&P-CM-'80
Our review of the record reveals that the September
26, 1978
letter was a
communication to the claimant from his foreman designed to benefit the claimant
by emphasizing the importance of maintaining a safe workplace. Merely because the
letter is permanently placed in his file does not convert the correspondence to
a
letter
of
reprimand. Second Division Award No.
8062
(Dennis). Both the
carrier and the employe are responsible for obeying the code of safety regulations.
Counseling and recordkeeping are to be encouraged so that all parties may be
constantly aware of the need to eliminate all hazards in the work place.
Here, the carrier was engagirsg in a cooperative effort with the claimant to
improve safety in the shop. By advising the claimant about safe work habits, the
foreman was fulfilling his obligation to provide, whenever possible, a safe work
environment for all employes. Because no discipline was imposed by the carrier,,
Rule 24 is inapplicable.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST=T BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By , ,' y `'.,..-~t*,-·-
~.!
.a,,..,,,a _ ~r
._;w·.c,~''
o emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated ~ Chicago Illinois, this 3rd day of December,
1980.
> >