Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12471
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 12431
92-2-91-2-242
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Hugh G. Duffy when award was rendered.
(International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Union Pacific Railroad Company
(former Texas & Pacific Railway Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

1. That the Texas and Pacific Railway Company (UP), violated the controlling agreement, particularly Rule 24(a), when they arbitrarily assessed a permanent letter concerning injury reports of Claimant P. A. Buccieri, to his permanent personal file, this adding to twelve (12) letters, or forms which where unknown to exist in this file, which Electrician P. A. Buccieri considers was unjust treatment.

2. That the Texas and Pacific Railroad Company (UP) be ordered to cease and desist these actions and remove this letter, and twelve (12) other letters, or forms from the permanent personal file of Electrician P. A. Buccieri, as per the requirements of the Agreement and Rule 24(a).

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.



A Personal Safety Conference was held with Claimant on April 12, 1990, by Carrier's Manager of Operations. A Conference Letter summarizing the meeting was then sent to the Claimant, and a copy of the letter was placed in his permanent personal file.
Form 1 Award No. 12471
Page 2 Docket No. 12431
92-2-91-2-242

The Organization contends that the letter constitutes discipline, and that Carrier is thus in violation of Rule 24 of the Agreement, which provides for an Investigation prior to any disciplinary action. It also alleges certain procedural defects in Carrier's handling of this matter; however, the Board concludes that these procedural objections are not well-founded and we will proceed directly to the merits of the claim.



_ "On April 12, 1990, you attended a Personal Safety










It is well-established under previous decisions of the Board that a Conference Letter does not constitute discipline provided the letter does not contain a definitive finding that an employee committed an infraction. The Board finds that the letter in this case is general in nature, and makes neither accusations nor findings. We thus conclude that the Carrier has not violated the Agreement.






                          By Order of Second Division


Attest:
      K"00

          cy J. -Executive Secretary ,~v


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of October 1992.