Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9522
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9539
2-C&-~a-FO-'
83
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee David P. Twomey when award was rendered.
( International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
Parties to Dispute:
( Chicago and North Western Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. Under the current controlling Agreement, Mr. J. R. Stowe, Laborer,
Green Bay, Wisconsin, was unjustly dealt with when a letter of reprimand
was placed on his file; on May
19, 1981.
2. That accordingly, Chicago and NorthWestern Transportation Company be
ordered to remove the letter of reprimand from his personal file.
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, Mr. J. R. Stowe, is employed by the Carrier as a Laborer, at
Green Bay, Wisconsin. On May
19, 1981,
Mr. Stowe was handed the following letter,
which letter was placed in his personal file:
"Mr. J. R. Stowe
Laborer
Green Bay Enginehouse
Green Bay, Wisconsin
During your tour of duty between the hours of 12:00 midnight
and
8:00
A.M. on the morning of May
19, 1981,
you were assigned
to clean the underframe of unit
4130.
This unit had the fuel
tank removed for repair and was to have the entire underframe
area cleaned before the fuel tank was installed.
When this unit was inspected by me at
8:10
A.M. on the morning
of May
19, 1981,
it was found to be only partially cleaned.
Further investigation revealed the cleaning was begun on the
afternoon shift prior to your coming on duty. The area which
was cleaned by you could in no way constitute a day's work.
Form 1 Award No. 9522
Page 2 Docket No.
9539
2-C&NW-FO-'83
A work performance of this nature can not and will not be
tolerated. I expect your
job
performance will improve or
further action will be taken.
A copy of this letter will be placed in your personal file.
S/R. E. Nickel
Division Shop Supt.
The Organization contends that the placing of the letter in Mr. Stowe's
personal file is a violation of Rule 21 of the current Agreement which assures
employes who have been in service longer than sixty days that they will not be
disciplined or dismissed without an investigation. The Organization sees the
third paragraph of the letter as a threat and a disciplinary action. And, it
states that no investigation was held. The Organization states that Mr. Stowe
was not given an opportunity to present his side of the incident. It states that
Mr. Stowe did not have the proper tools for the
job,
but did the best he could
with a two inch scraper; and it notes that Mr. Stowe was the only Laborer on
the shift that night and he was assigned other work to do other than cleaning
the underframe.
The Carrier contends that a letter of reprimand to an employe does not in
any way constitute discipline of the employe. The Carrier states that a letter
of reprimand is strictly a written warning to the employe that the work he is
performing is not up to the standard of the North Western and he should make an
effort to improve his workmanship.
The Carrier states that letters of reprimand have been issued for many years
on their property and that such a practice is supported by decisions of the
Second and Third Divisions of the NRAB and SBA No. 235,
Second Division Award No. 8062 (Dennis), one of the awards cited by the
Carrier in support of its policy, states in part:.
"In dealing with this issue in other cases, this Board has
consistently maintained the position that letters of warning
are not disciplinary in nature, and that their insertion in
an Employee's file is not in violation of the investigation
requirements of most agreements. We have maintained that
properly used, letters of warning are an important and
necessary device that can change an Employee's behavior and
put him back on the track without the stigma of being
disciplined and having this become a part of his personnel
file and his work record.
On the other hand, it need not be pointed out at this late
date that this Board has decided a multitude of cases against
Carriers who have disciplined Employees without the benefit
of a hearing when it is required by agreement or who have
not conducted a hearing in a fair and impartial manner. We
have consistently upheld the contract right of Employees to
have the record of any false or disproven charges removed
from their files..."
Form 1
Page 3
Award No. 9522
Docket No. 9539
2-C&NW-FO-' 83
We are in full agreement with the rationale of Second Division Award No. 8062 that:
letters of warning as opposed to letters of discipline, are not in violation of
Rule 21 of the current Agreement.
Award No. 2196 of Special Board of Adjustment No. 235 (Cluster addressed
the question of whether a past reprimand could be used in assessing discipline
on an employe in a later case; and concluded in part that the Board has never
"...
referred to any past reprimand in any instance where the validity of the
reprimand was called into question before it..."
In the instant case we find that the May 19, 1981 letter was a letter of
warning dealing with the quality of work performance and was not a disciplinary
letter. It should be noted that Mr. Stowe disagrees with the warning. And, in
order to preserve his objection to the validity of the letter and to preserve the
protections set forth in Award 2196 of SBA 235, Mr. Stowe has the absolute right
to submit in writing for inclusion in his personal record his opinion that the
Carrier did not provide the proper tools to do the job even though on prior
occasions he requested such tools, and that he was the only Laborer on the shift
that night and was assigned other work to do other than the cleaning of the
underframe.
It should be noted that Second Division Award No. 8062 carefully avoided
sanctioning the use of the term "letter of reprimand" and in its place used "letter
of warning". The word "reprimand" may be perceived as having a disciplinary
connotation to it; and the usage "letter of warning" appears to be more appropriate.
The letter issued in this case makes no mention of the word "reprimand".
A WAR D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
BY
o emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of June, 1983
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division