Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 11683
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11343
89-2-86-2-161
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Thomas F. Carey when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(CSX Transportation, Inc.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1. That under the current and controlling agreement, Car Department
Laborer, J. A. Brown, I. D. No. 170454, who was unjustly treated when she
received a discipline letter in her personal record for alleged violation of
Rules 1, 3 and 17 of the Rules and Regulations of the Mechanical Department.
Said alleged violations occurring on or about October 3, 1985.
2. That accordingly, C.S.X.Transportation be ordered to remove the
discipline letter dated October 10, 1985, from the Claimant's personal record,
as she was not allowed due process of a formal hearing as provided for under
the revised Rule 28 of the current and controlling agreement.
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 employes 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 has been employed as a Laborer at the Waycross Car Shop,
Waycross, Georgia since January 19, 1977. On October 3, 1985, the Claimant
was directed by a Supervisor to move a welding machine from one area of the
shop to another. When she did not comply with the order, the Supervisor again
instructed her to move the machine. The Claimant stated that she desired to
perform her duties in a particular order, but the Supervisor informed her that
she must move the machine immediately. The Claimant allegedly became boisterous and threw a broom she had been using to the floor. The Supervisor then
summoned the Assistant Department Foreman, who repeated the instructions to
the Claimant regarding moving the machine and asked whether she understood the
directive. The Claimant declined to answer and asked her Foreman for permission to go home. He denied her permission to do so, and she subsequently
moved the welding machine as initially directed.
./
Form 1 Award No. 11683
Page 2 Docket No. 11343
89-2-86-2-161
On that same day, the Claimant was summoned to the office of the
General Foreman to discuss the incident. In the presence of her Local Chairman, she was informed that any further display of disruptive and insubordinate
behavior would constitute sufficient cause for formal handling. The conference was confirmed by a letter of October 10, 1985.
The Organization asserts that the letter of October 10, 1985, was
accusatory in nature, and should not have been placed in the Claimant's file
without a fair and impartial hearing. It also complains that it was not given
sufficient notice to properly represent the Claimant at the October 3, 1985
hearing, and that she was not properly notified of it by certified mail. The
Carrier counters that the Claimant was merely being cautioned as to her conduct, that the correspondence was not intended as a Letter of Discipline, and
that the October 3 meeting was not a formal hearing but merely a conference.
In Second Division Award 8062, it is stated:
"...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...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."
This passage supports the proper utilization of Letters of Warning--not as
reprimands, but rather as counseling tools. A Letter of Warning cannot be
used as the basis for assessing a future penalty for an offense--only for the
purpose of placing an individual on notice that particular behavior is unacceptable. Further, a Claimant always retains the right to append a rebuttal
to such a Letter.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that the said Letter
of Warning does not constitute discipline and that the Claimant's due process
rights were not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest
Nancy J. er - Executive Secretary
low
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of March 1989.