The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence,~finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Claimant was employed by Carrier as a Machinist at the Chattanooga Diesel Shop in Chattanooga, Tennessee. On February 8, 1991, Carrier's Senior General Foreman met with Claimant to discuss the application of Safety and General Conduct Rule 1040 to the wearing of hearing protection in the specified shop areas. On February 11, 1991, the Senior General Foreman confirmed the discussion in a letter addressed to Claimant, as follows: Form 1 Award No. 12699
The organization contends that the above cited letter constituted a reprimand and was very "accusatory" in nature, in that it accused Claimant of violating a Safety Rule and advised him that employees who persist in unsafe work practices may be subject to discipline.. The Organization argues that the letter was "discipline" and, thus, carrier was guilty of disciplining Claimant, without the benefit of a fair and impartial hearing and without benefit of representation, in violation of Rule 34 of the Agreement. The Organization relies upon Second Division Awards 10676 and 12514, to support its position. Form 1 Award No. 12699
Carrier responds that the letter in question did not impose a penalty of any kind, and, therefore, cannot be characterized as "discipline." Carrier argues that it has an inherent right to establish safety rules and an obligation to promote obedience to those rules to ensure a safe and efficient environment for its employees. Carrier further states that it has an inherent right to discuss job-related matters with its employees and confirm such discussions via counseling letters, placed in the involved employee's file. Carrier contends that this procedure does not constitute "discipline" and, thus, Rule 34 has no application and has not been violated. Carrier cites Public Law Board No. 3858, Award 116 and Public Law Board No. 5015, Award 26 on this property involving the same Agreement and Public Law Board No. 2789, Awards 41 and 64, and Public Law Board No. 2789, Award 7 on an affiliated property to supports its position.
We find nothing in the Agreement which prohibits Carrier from having counseling sessions with its employees and placing written confirmation of such sessions in the employee's files, provided Carrier does not use or refer to such letters in any future formal disciplinary procedures. The Claim herein is premised upon speculation as to what Carrier might use this letter for in the future. The Organization cannot sustain its Claim based solely on speculation. Should Carrier attempt to cite or refer to this letter in the future or consider it in weighing the degree of discipline to assess in a subsequent discipline procedure involving Claimant, then the organization will have the basis for an objection. At the present time, there has been no violation of Rule 34 and the Claim will be denied.